Cross-border content : investigation into sharing the curricula across borders and its opportunities for Opportunities for Open Education Resources.
Date: 2016-03-01
Institutions: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Subjects: digital technology, distance learning, education policy, learning, new educational methods, open university, research report, teaching curriculum, teaching method

Cross-border Content 

Investigation into Sharing 
Curricula across Borders and  
its Opportunities for  
Open Education Resources 

Giles Pepler, Sara Frank Bristow, Paul Bacsich  
Nick Jeans, Riina Vuorikari 

2 0 1 5  

Please replace with an image illustrating your report 
and  align  it  with  the  bottom  edge  of  the  cover.  Make  sure  the 
blue JRC footer reaches the bottom of the page. Please remove 
this text box from your cover.  

Report EUR 27245 EN 

 
 
 
 
European Commission 
Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies  

Contact information 
Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 
E-mail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954488318 
Fax: +34 954488300 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/institutes/ipts 

Legal Notice 
This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2015 

JRC94956 

EUR 27245 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-48249-6 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2791/450706 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Abstract 

The  aim  of  this  study  was  to  make  an  inventory  of  the  existing  cases  in  formal  education  (school  sector,  vocational 
education and higher education) where a curriculum or syllabus is shared across borders (e.g. state, national, linguistic and 
cultural). Based on the analysis of the desk research and a case study, further considerations  was given to the potential 
cross border sharing of curricula/syllabi could have for Open Educational Resources, either existing or prospective.  

The study was conducted in three parts. The first involved scoping and classifying cross-border syllabi/curricula initiatives 
and their drivers. This was followed by a detailed case study of the US Common Core State Standards Initiative and its 
impact on OER. These two parts are brought together in this final report and the research findings and they issues they 
raise are  discussed.    Finally, the  report  identifies  potential areas  for  investigation to  leverage  synergies  between  cross-
border syllabi/curricula and OER in the context of formal education in the EU. 

The report calls for visionary multi-stakeholder initiatives in the area of cross-border curricula and education that could 
offer  viable  collaboration  on  Open  Educational  Resources.    This  could  benefit  not  only  single  Member  States,  but  also 
create an outlook that, in the longer term, might form a pillar of the development of a European connected digital single 
market, for example for boosting digital skills and learning. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

On  25  September  2013,  the  Commission  presented  a  new  Communication  on  “Opening  up 
Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new technologies and Open Educational 
Resources”,  COM(2013)  654  final.  The  aim  of  the  initiative  is  to  bring  the  digital  revolution  to 
education  with  a  range  of  actions  in  three  areas:  open  learning  environments,  open  educational 
resources, and connectivity and innovation. The initiative contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy, 
acknowledging that a fundamental transformation of education and training is needed to address 
the new skills and competences that will be required if Europe is to remain competitive, overcome 
the current economic crisis and grasp new opportunities.  

The  aim  of  this  study  was  to  make  an  inventory  of  existing  cases  within  the  context  of  formal 
education (school sector, vocational education and higher education) where a curriculum or syllabus 
is shared across borders (e.g. state, national, linguistic and cultural). Based on  the analysis of the 
desk research and a case study of the US Common Core State Standards Initiative and its impact 
on  OER,  further  considerations  are  made  for  the  potential  of  Open  Educational  Resources,  either 
existing or prospective.  

This report is a contribution to the construction of a knowledge base on Opening up Education and 
is part of a wider scientific agenda on "ICT for Learning and Skills" being developed at IPTS. More 
than 20 different studies and more than 50 different publications have been undertaken on Open 
Education  and  OER,  Innovating  Learning  and  Teaching,  Key  Competences  and  21st  century  skills 
with. All studies are aimed at supporting European policies on the modernisation and innovation of 
E&T  (DG  EAC)  and  development  of  key  competences  and  qualifications  (DG  EMPL)  as  well  as 
addressing the Digital Agenda for Europe (DG CNECT) and more recently, the Digital Single Market 
(DSM) initiative under the Juncker Commission. 

This study calls for visionary multi-stakeholder initiatives in the area of cross-border curricula and 
education that could offer viable collaboration on Open Educational Resources benefiting not only 
single  Member  States  in  Europe,  but  also  potentially  contributing  to  the  European  Digital  Single 
Market initiative.  

Yves Punie, Team Leader "ICT for Learning and Skills" 
Riina Vuorikari, Research Fellow  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

This  is  the  final  report  on  the  JRC-IPTS  study  called  A  Scoping  Study  on  the  Potential  of  Shared, 
Cross-Border OER and Syllabi in Europe. The study, conducted in the second half of 2014, aimed to 
investigate cross-border content in education and the resulting opportunities for the production and 
reuse of Open Educational Resources (OER).  

Previous literature has identified the following cases of cross-border (re)use: 

 

 

 

the OER originates in a country (e.g. Spain) different from the user’s country (e.g. France) 
and is in a different language (Spanish) from the user’s mother tongue (French);  
the  OER  is  in  the  user’s  mother  tongue  (e.g.  German),  but  the  user  and  OER  come  from 
different countries, e.g. Austria and Germany; and  
the  user  and  the  OER  come  from  the  same  country  (e.g.  France),  but  the  content  is  in  a 
different language (e.g. English). 

In terms of OER, the situation is sometimes paradoxical: even though many curricula and/or syllabi 
descriptions are similar in Member States, many produce their own OER in the same topic areas, 
e.g. Biology (e.g. human body, DNA), Calculus (e.g. differentiation, integration), Physics (e.g. motion, 
sound  and  waves).  Very  little  cross-border  reuse  of  OER  takes  place  among  Member  States 
(Vuorikari & Koper, 2009). 

In  this  study,  the  term  cross-border  use  is  extended  to  any  curricula,  or  syllabi,  used  in  the 
situations  described  above,  including  between  states  in  federal  countries  such  as  the  US  or 
Germany.  By  curriculum,  we  broadly  refer  to  a  specifically-planned  sequence  of  instruction 
incorporating (or not) specific content and resources. The focus was on existing cases in the context 
of  formal  education  (school  sector,  vocational  education  and  higher  education).  The  research 
methods were based on desk research and case study methods. The study was conducted in three 
parts. 

The  goal  of  the  study  was  to  find  further  evidence  of  cross-border  content  and  its  use  for 
educational purposes. The idea was to look for valuable experiences in order to identify innovative 
approaches  and  opportunities,  undiscovered  up  until  now.  These  would  enable  us  to  better 
understand how to take advantage of the potential of cross-border content for educational goals in 
the European Union's policy context.  

The  study  first  conducted  an  inventory  of  cases  where  an  educational  curriculum  or  syllabus  is 
shared across a border. Evidence was gathered in the following three categories: 

  Firstly, the evidence from the inventory of initiatives shows that some syllabi and their 
content  are  used  cross-border  intentionally,  e.g.  cross-country  curricula  for  schools 
(International  Baccalaureate;  IGCSE),  language  tests  (e.g.  TOEFL)  and  computer  skills 
(ECDL).  

  Secondly,  some  content  is  used  cross-border  even  though  it  has  not  been 
intentionally  created  for  that  purpose.  Good  examples  of  these  are  IT  vendor 
qualifications  –  e.g.  Java,  Microsoft  and  Cisco.  In  addition,  many  MOOCs  attract  learners 
from all over the world, so that traditional national boundaries are being affected.  

  Thirdly,  there  is  evidence  of  some  collaboration  and  leadership  that  has 
stimulated  cross-border  OER  usage  thanks  to  common  goals.  In  North  America,  the 
Common Core State Standards was chosen as a detailed case study for its usefulness as 
an international example.   

Based  on  the  inventory  of  cross-border  initiatives  and  related  literature,  the  second  part  of  the 
study  discussed  the  issues  that  arose.  Some  of  these  issues  are  generic  for  any  cross-border 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
educational initiatives, whereas others are specific to the issue of OER. They can be grouped in the 
following  6  areas:  financial  issues  and  sustainability;  portability;  language;  accreditation;  sectoral 
traditions  and  governance;  and  finally  a  bundle  of  general  issues  that  impact  all  e-learning 
innovation and development, including teacher training and CPD. 

The  third  part  of  the  report  identified  the  following  potential  areas  for  investigation  to  leverage 
synergies between cross-border syllabi/curricula and OER in the context of formal education in the 
EU.  

  How might the current key collaborative initiatives be further developed?  
  What  is  the  potential  for  extended  collaborative  initiatives  in  particular  subjects  and 

content areas, specifically STEM and languages?  

  Could there be collaboration between commercial and non-profit actors?  
  What are the potential economic benefits of shared OER and cross-border curricula?   
  How far could ‘seed corn’ and bottom-up initiatives be upscaled?  
  What potential for transferability do current government-level initiatives have?  
  How could informal learning be validated? 

In conclusion, the study calls for visionary multi-stakeholder initiatives in the area of cross-border 
curricula  and  education  that  could  offer  viable  collaboration  in  Open  Educational  Resources.  This 
would  not  only  benefit  individual  Member  States,  but  also  create  an  outlook  that,  in  the  longer 
term, might form a pillar of the development of a European connected Digital Single Market, by for 
example boosting digital skills and learning. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
2. 

3. 

2.1 

2.2  

3.1 
3.2 

1.1  
1.2 

2.1.1 
2.1.2 
2.1.3 

Table of Contents 
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2 
Introduction and brief .............................................................................................................................. 5 
1. 
The context for this study ................................................................................................................. 5 
The study brief .................................................................................................................................. 6 
Cross-border syllabi/curricula initiatives and the impact of Common Core State Standards 
on OER ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 
Cross-border syllabi/curricula initiatives .......................................................................................... 7 
Cross-border curricula and examinations ................................................................................. 7 
Open Educational Resources aimed at cross-border use ......................................................... 8 
Cross-border information .......................................................................................................... 8 
The impact of Common Core ............................................................................................................ 9 
Context of the investigation ...................................................................................................... 9 
2.2.1 
The policy context ...................................................................................................................... 9 
2.2.2 
Drivers for the Common Core State Standards ........................................................................ 9 
2.2.3 
State of play in 2014 with OER ............................................................................................... 10 
2.2.4 
2.2.5 
Issues arising ........................................................................................................................... 11 
Implementing cross-border curricula/syllabi at the European level ........................................ 12 
Summary of the evidence from current initiatives ........................................................................ 12 
Emerging issues .............................................................................................................................. 13 
Educational reforms, financial issues and sustainability ........................................................ 13 
3.2.1 
Portability: curriculum compatibility ........................................................................................ 14 
3.2.2 
Language issues ...................................................................................................................... 15 
3.2.3 
Accreditation and recognition of qualifications....................................................................... 16 
3.2.4 
Sectoral traditions and governance ......................................................................................... 17 
3.2.5 
3.2.6 
General issues impacting e-learning innovation and development ........................................ 18 
Areas for further investigation ....................................................................................................... 20 
Building on current collaboration .................................................................................................... 20 
Developing content and subject areas: STEM and languages........................................................ 20 
Collaboration between commercial and non-profit actors ............................................................ 22 
Researching potential economic benefits ....................................................................................... 22 
Upscaling ‘bottom-up’ and ‘seed corn’ initiatives........................................................................... 22 
Transferability  of  existing  national  government-supported  initiatives  between  countries  and 
regions ............................................................................................................................................. 23 
Validation of informal learning ....................................................................................................... 23 
Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................ 24 
References ........................................................................................................................................... 25 
General references .......................................................................................................................... 25 
Common Core.................................................................................................................................. 26 
Economic and business case .......................................................................................................... 27 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6  

6.1 
6.2 
6.3 

5.  
6. 

4.7 

4. 

4 

 
1. 

Introduction and brief 

The  aim  of  this  study  was  to  make  an  inventory  of  the  existing  cases  within  the  context  of 
formal education (school sector, vocational education and higher education) where a curriculum or 
syllabus  is  shared  across  borders  (e.g.  state,  national,  linguistic  and  cultural)  and  consider  in 
particular the OER aspects, existing or prospective. The study was done for IPTS by Sero Consulting 
Ltd  of  Sheffield,  England,  over  the  period  June-December  2014.  It  took  full  advantage  of  the 
outputs of the POERUP project  Policies for OER Uptake (2011-14, part-funded by the EU Lifelong 
Learning Programme) which reported in October 2014. 

1.1   The context for this study 

In 2001, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in an unprecedented  move, announced 
its  intention  to  release  nearly  all  the  online  resources  for  its  courses  on  the  internet  for  free 
access.1 As  the  number  of  institutions  offering  free  or  open  courseware  increased,  UNESCO 
organized the 1st Global  OER  Forum  in  2002  where  the  term  Open Educational Resources (OER) 
was  adopted.  The  term  Open  Courseware  (OCW)  also  emerged,  referring  to  a  free  and  open 
digital  publication  of  high  quality  university-level  educational  materials  that  are  organized  as 
courses,  and  include  course  planning  materials,  evaluation  tools,  and  thematic  content,  under  an 
open license, in particular and increasingly a Creative  Commons license. 

A  number  of  challenges  must  be  overcome  to  seize  the  full  potential  of  OER  for  all  educational 
sectors.  From  a  technological  perspective,  accessibility,  interoperability,  reusability,  quality  and 
applicability  need  to  be  further  improved.  While  standards  exist  that  are  meant  to  facilitate 
storage,  search  and  retrieval  of  OER,  further  technological  and  legal  solutions  need  to  be 
developed: 
increase 
opportunities for sharing, reuse, adaptation and  knowledge  exchange. 

retrieve  relevant  resources;  and 

improve  access; 

identify  and 

to 

To improve quality and sustainability of resources, it is crucial to establish social mechanisms and 
learning  communities  around  OER  which  contribute  to  increasing  the  motivation  amongst 
stakeholders to create, share and evaluate useful content. A number of issues hindering the uptake 
and reuse of Open Educational Resources in Europe have been identified. One such issue is related 
to the reuse of existing OER in a new  educational, lingual and national context, henceforth called 
cross-border use of OER (Vuorikari & Koper, 2009). In previous literature, the following cross-border 
cases have been identified:  

(1)  the  OER  originates  in  a  different  country  (e.g.  Spain)  from  the  user’s  country  (e.g. 
France) and is in a different language (Spanish) from the user’s mother tongue (French);  
(2) the OER is in the user’s mother tongue (e.g. German), but the user and OER come from 
different countries, e.g. Austria and Germany; and  
(3) the user and the OER come from the same country (e.g. France), but the content is in a 
different language (e.g. English). 

In this study, the term cross-border use is extended to any curricula, or syllabi, when it is used in 
above  described  situations,  including  between  states  in  federal  countries  such  as  the  US  or 
Germany.  By  curriculum  we  broadly  refer  to  a  specifically  planned  sequence  of  instruction 
incorporating (or not) the specific content and resources. 

In  terms  of  OER,  the  situation  is  sometimes  paradoxical:  even  if  many  curricula  and/or  syllabi 
descriptions are similar in Member States, many produce their own OER  in the  same  topic  areas, 

1 http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
e.g.  Biology  (e.g.  human  body,  DNA),  Calculus  (e.g.  differentiation,  integration),  Physics  (e.g. 
motion, sound and waves). Very little cross-border reuse exists among  Member States. 

Similarly, in the course of the OEREU study2 (Open Educational Resources and Practices in Europe) 
and its scenario-building exercises,  the issue of cross-border reuse of OER emerged. 

To  further  investigate  the  issue,  this  scoping  study  was  undertaken  on  the  potential  of  shared, 
cross-border OER and syllabi within the context of  formal education in Europe, taking insight also 
from the US in particular and the non-European world in general. 

1.2  The study brief 

The study was in three parts. The first (Deliverable 1) involved scoping and classifying cross-border 
syllabi/curricula initiatives and their drivers (Jeans, Pepler & Bacsich, 2014). It was followed  by a 
detailed  case  study  (Deliverable  2)  of  the  US  Common  Core  State  Standards  Initiative  and  its 
impact on OER (Bristow, 2014).  With both these elements brought together in this final  report, it 
discusses the research findings and the issues they raise and identifies potential areas for further 
investigation on synergies between cross-border syllabi/curricula and OER in the context of formal 
education in the EU. 

The Study Team consisted of: 
  Paul  Bacsich (Sero),  Project  Manager, quality  assurance,  contributions to initiatives  and policy 
recommendations,  co-author  of  Deliverable  3  (this  report)  and  researcher/editor  on 
Deliverable 1. 

  Giles Pepler (Sero), lead author of Deliverable 3 and second author on Deliverable 1. 
  Nick Jeans (Sero), lead author of Deliverable 1 on the World Tour of SharedOER, and co-author 

of Deliverable 3. 

  Sara Frank Bristow (Salient Research and Sero), author of Deliverable 2 on the Common Core 

and its impact on OER, and co-author of Deliverable 3. 

  Riina Vuorikari (IPTS), contributor of initiatives and policy issues and co-author of Deliverable 3. 

The  Team  would  like  to  acknowledge  the  ongoing  support  from  Yves  Punie,  leader  of  the  IPTS 
research and policy activities on ICT for Learning and Skilling. 

2 http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/OEREU.html 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Cross-border syllabi/curricula initiatives and the impact 

of Common Core State Standards on OER 

This section reviews the main findings from the first two parts of the study, which were conducted 
during  late  summer  and  autumn  2014.  The  inventory  of  initiatives  does  not  claim  to  be 
comprehensive but we hope that it is representative of the field. 

2.1  Cross-border syllabi/curricula initiatives 

According to the inventory, cross-border initiatives can be categorised under three main headings: 
cross-border  curricula  and  examinations;  OER  aimed  at  cross-border  use;  and  information 
initiatives. 

2.1.1  Cross-border curricula and examinations 

Based  in  Europe,  there  are  two  major  sets  of  examinations  offering  cross-border  curricula  for 
schools: the International Baccalaureate,3 offering a continuum of education, consisting of four 
programmes for students aged 3 to 19, and the Cambridge IGCSE,4 now with an additional primary 
level  curriculum  framework  for  each  subject.  Both  the  International  Baccalaureate  and  the  IGCSE 
are  supported  by  a  number  of  repositories,  offering  some  free  resources  on  an  OER  basis;  both 
curricula are in English. 

There  are  a  number  of  internationally  recognised  language  tests:  in  English  the  British  Council 
offers  IELTS  and  APTIS,5 and  from  the  USA  comes  TOEFL.6 Parallel  tests  for  French  language 
proficiency  are  provided  by  CIEP7 and  the  Europe-based  test  materials  are  linked  with  CEFR 
(Common European Framework for Languages).8 

In  the  ICT  field  the  European  Computer  Driving  Licence  is  offered  by  the  eponymous 
Foundation.9 The programmes are vendor-neutral, although there are few supporting OER resources 
at  present.  There  are  three  major  international  suites  of  programmes  offered  by  vendors:  Java 
Developer Tutorials and Training,10 Microsoft Learning,11 and Cisco Academy.12 

The VET field (Vocational Education and Training, ISCED level 4) is much less well served. ALISON13 
is the only large organisation based in Europe offering a broad range of vocational qualifications. In 
January 2014, they claimed 350,000 ALISON Graduates Worldwide.14 Outside Europe, a major new 
initiative Skills Commons15 has recently been launched in the USA and there have been informal 
moves to interest EU countries in this. In higher education (ISCED 5 and up), the rapid growth of the 
MOOC  movement  has  greatly  increased  the  range  of  courses  available  on  a  cross-border  basis. 

3 http://www.ibo.org 
4 http://www.cie.org.uk/programmes-and-qualifications/cambridge-secondary-2/cambridge-igcse/ 
5 http://www.britishcouncil.org/exam 
6 http://www.ets.org/toefl 
7 http://www.ciep.fr 
8 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp 
9 http://www.ecdl.org/programmes/ecdl_icdl  
10 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index-jsp-135888.html 
11 https://www.microsoft.com/learning/en-gb/default.aspx 
12 http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/netacad/ 
13 http://alison.com 
14 http://www.excited.ie/another-string-excited-bow-revealed/  
15 http://www.skillscommons.org 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Within  Europe,  key  players  include  Iversity,16 currently  the  only  MOOC  platform  to  have  courses 
that  offer  credits  through  the  European  Credit  Transfer  System  (ECTS),17 European  Multiple 
MOOC Aggregator (EMMA),18 FutureLearn,19 OpenUpEd,20 Formasup21 and FIED.22 

2.1.2  Open Educational Resources aimed at cross-border use 

The  Learning  Resource  Exchange23 (LRE)  offers  almost  130,000  learning  resources/assets. 
Within the LRE, between 2009-2012, nine Ministries of Education or National educational agencies 
that  were  nominated  to  act  on  their  behalf24,  participated  in  a  project  to  developed  criteria  for 
resources  that  ‘travel  well’.  The  term  ‘travel  well’  has  the  same  meaning  as  cross-border  use, 
meaning crossing national, language and curriculum boundaries. The project defined seven criteria 
for  assessing  OER's  portability  across  frontiers  and  curricula25.  A  previous  project  eCOLOURS26 
(2005-2006)  involving  Ministries  of  Education,  and  also  leading  educational  content  developers, 
addressed the needs to develop cross-border approaches to co-production and localisation.  

Some  of  the  government-supported  OER  portals  have  now  crossed  borders  –  a  good  example  is  
KlasCement  which is  supported  by  the  Flemish  Ministry  of  Education  and  Training.  The  portal  is 
also used in the Netherlands.27 In the case of KlasCement, after having a number of registrations 
by Dutch teachers, collaboration was started between KlasCement, Kennisnet28 and Wikiwijs29 with 
the  aim  of  sharing  experiences  and  best  practices,  but  also  technical  collaboration  took  place  so 
that all resources in Klascement were accessible in Wikiwijs and vice versa.  

Across  Europe  a  number of  initiatives  provide  OER in  single  subjects, e.g.  EUROCLIO30 in  History. 
Europeana31 is  an  important  cultural  repository  providing  OER  which  can  enrich  and  support  a 
range of curricula. 

2.1.3  Cross-border information 

Although  not  providing  cross-border  curricula  or  shared  OER  themselves,  there  are  several 
initiatives  providing  information  on  cross-border  accreditation  and  study  opportunities,  including 
ENIC/NARIC,32 Ploteus33 and Open Education Europa.34 

16 https://iversity.org 
17 http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/ects_en.htm 
18 http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/project/emma-0  
19 https://www.futurelearn.com 
20 http://www.openuped.eu 
21 http://www.formasup.education.fr 
22 http://www.fied.fr 
23 http://lreforschools.eun.org/ 
24 http://eqnet.eun.org/web/guest/about 
25 http://lreforschools.eun.org/web/guest/travel-well 
26 http://ecolours.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/about/entry_page.cfm?id_area=1015 
27 http://www.klascement.be; http://www.klascement.eu; http://www.klascement.nl   
28 http://www.kennisnet.nl/ 
29 http://www.wikiwijsleermiddelenplein.nl/ 
30 http://euroclio.eu/new 
31 http://www.europeana.eu/portal/ 
32 http://www.enic-naric.net 
33 http://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/ 
34 http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/about_this_portal 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2   The impact of Common Core 

2.2.1  Context of the investigation 

This case study examined the recent development of Open Educational Resources (OER) and syllabi 
within the context of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the United States. It analysed 
the impact that these newly introduced (2010)  standards have had on the production, reuse and 
dissemination of OER in a number of states, as well as across state borders. A review of current 
state-based  OER  policies  and  practices  was  provided,  along  with  an  inventory  of  relevant 
implementation guides and content repositories. This offered a snapshot of developments as seen 
in  autumn  2014  and  thus  might  exclude  initiatives  established  around  or  after  this  date.  In 
constructing  it  the  team  examined  an  array  of  open  and  proprietary  academic  journals, 
organisational reports, blogs, webinars and other media. Due to the rapidly changing landscape of 
CCSS planning and implementation, little data that extended beyond the 2012-13 school year had 
been  published  at  the  time  of  writing;  interviews  with  key  contacts  at  state  departments  of 
education and other organisations played a key role in obtaining an accurate portrait of the state of 
CCSS at the start of School Year 2014-15. 

2.2.2  The policy context 

It should be noted that the US federal government does not play a direct role in regulating most 
components  of  education  in  its  primary  and  secondary  schools,  nor  in  ensuring  a  uniform  set  of 
national  standards or curriculum. US law prohibits the federal education department from having 
any control over state or local districts’ academic achievement standards or curriculum. Each of the 
50 states bears full responsibility for the education of its children. Most states then devolve further 
curricular  decision-making  to  the  local  level,  a  state  of  governance  described  as  ‘local  control’. 
Depending  on  the  state,  responsibility  for  ensuring  a  high-quality  education  may  be  shifted  to 
regional  school  boards,  city  (municipal)  school  boards,  school  unions,  or  in  some  cases  schools 
themselves (e.g. charter schools).35 As a result, the nature and quality of education provided across 
the  United  States  can  vary  dramatically,  not  just  from  state  to  state,  but  from  district  to  district 
(and even school to school). 

2.2.3  Drivers for the Common Core State Standards 

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are designed to ensure that students graduating from 
high  school  are  prepared  to  begin  two-  or  four-year  postsecondary  programmes  or  enter  the 
workforce.  Specifically,  the  standards  identify  specific  goals  for  language  and literacy,  as  well  as 
for Mathematics, that students should acquire at each grade level. Importantly for the US context, 
the  initiative  was  a  states-led  effort,  not  a  federal  one.  The  CCSS  Initiative  was  first  formed  in 
2009, and the standards for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) were made available in 2010. 
The  standards  identify  specific  goals  for  language  and  literacy,  as  well  as  for  Mathematics,  that 
students should acquire at each grade level. As noted on the CCSS web site, the standards focus on 
core concepts and procedures starting in the early grades, which “gives teachers the time needed to 
teach them and gives students the time needed to master them”.36 

For  kindergarten  through  grade  8  (K-8),  these  are  grade-by-grade;  at  high  school  level,  the 
standards are grouped into bands for grades 9-10 and grades 11-12. Bands are intended to allow 
schools, districts, and states flexibility in course design. 

For  English  Language  Arts  (ELA),  the  K-5  standards  include  expectations  for  reading,  writing, 
speaking, listening, and language across a range of subjects. Standards for grades 6-12 are divided 

35 http://www.publiccharters.org/get-the-facts/public-charter-schools/ 
36 http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
into two sections, one for ELA, the other for History/Social Studies, Science, and technical subjects. 
In Mathematics, the Common Core concentrates on a clear set of mathematical skills and concepts 
to  encourage  students  to  solve  real-world  problems.  High  school  (grades  9-12)  standards  are 
organised by conceptual category, showing the body of knowledge students should acquire in each 
category  to  be  college-  and  career-  ready,  or  to  pursue  advanced  study  in  Mathematics. 
Accompanying  model  course  descriptions,  or  pathways,  are  not  intended  as  prescriptive  for 
curriculum or pedagogy. 

2.2.4  State of play in 2014 with OER 

As  of  October  2014,  43  US  states  had  voluntarily  adopted  and  were  working  to  implement  the 
Common  Core  State  Standards.  Open  Educational  Resources,  which  reside  primarily  (or  by  some 
definitions, entirely) online, have emerged as a viable and potentially cost-saving implementation 
option (CCSSO, 2014), alongside a wide range of proprietary digital textbooks from traditional and 
newly-formed publishers.37 

There have been a number of barriers to implementation. Upon embracing the Common Core State 
Standards,  many  states  have  found  them  difficult  to  integrate  into  existing  school  ecosystems. 
Using recently procured resources, teachers must learn to teach according to more complex, more 
prescriptive standards, and schools must adapt their schedules to cross-curricular requirements, as 
well  as  grade  banding  at  the  higher  levels.  Federal  accountability  measures  that  tie  funding  to 
CCSS  assessment  have  also  proved  thorny.  Additionally,  school  leaders  are  encountering 
technological barriers on the route to deployment. Broadband internet capability simply may not be 
up to the challenges demanded by a fully online curriculum; students educated in face-to-face or 
blended settings may be unprepared for 100% online examinations; teachers and students may not 
be  adequately  computer  literate;  teachers  may  even  find  too  few  computers  in  their  schools  on 
which to  administer  required  assessments.38 Apart  from the practical  barriers listed  above,  in  the 
political  sphere,  a  steady  stream  of  criticisms  of  the  Common  Core  State  Standards  has  been 
levelled in the years since the standards were made available. Among these are several common 
accusations: 
  That CCSS lowers academic standards, as opposed to raising them. 
  That CCSS are part and parcel of a nationally mandated − and therefore illegal – curriculum. 
  That  CCSS  were  formed  by  special  interests  seeking  to  profit  from  software,  textbook  and 

assessment tool sales. 

Prior  to  autumn  2014,  multi-state  collaborations  specific  to  OER  were  not  commonly  found 
between US states, though other academic multi-state collaboration vehicles are not unusual. The 
first major cross-border OER initiative, the  K-12  OER  Collaborative, was launched in November 
2014  at  the  Open  Education  Conference  in  Washington,  DC.39 The  Collaborative  seeks  to  offer 
additional choice to local education agencies, reduce expenditures, and offer higher quality digital 
educational content. Other partnerships focusing on CCSS have generally revolved around the issue 
of assessment, and take on a range of forms. 

The  further  outlook  is  potentially  encouraging:  OER  features  increasingly  prominently  among 
education leaders’ decision-making, and its uptake has been encouraged in federal planning tools 
such as the National Broadband Plan (2010), the National Educational Technology Plan (2010), the 
Digital  Textbook  Playbook  (2012)  and  initiatives  announced  under  the  Second  Open  Government 
National Action Plan (2013). 

37 See : https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-10-20-open-book-test-can-a-cost-saving-measure-also-raise-
performance 
38 http://www.edweek.org/media/common_core_assessments_final_8_26_13.pdf 
39 http://openedconference.org/2014/ 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.5  Issues arising 

The case study of the Common Core State Standards in the US raises two sets of hypotheses which 
are elaborated below, outlining the main lessons learned. 

1. The goal is cross-border adoption of common standards, as in the US 

Look beyond the public education sphere for partners, funding and thought leadership. Foundations 
and  commercial  entities,  for  example,  have  been  great  supporters  of  the  Common  Core  State 
Standards Initiative, as have non-profit education organisations. 

  Leave it to each state whether it adopts − and how it executes – the common standards. 
  Cross-border regulation should  make it financially desirable, but not strictly  necessary, to 

adopt the standards. 

  Act  swiftly,  as  there may  be  widespread  criticism/backlash.  Solicit  public  feedback  swiftly 

and efficiently through supporting consortia members. 

  Ensure adequate technological capability  at school/school  district/state level if technology 

is to feature prominently in measuring achievement. 

  Prepare states for reform of curricular content, professional development, and assessment 

systems after introduction of new standards. 

2. The goal is to spur development and uptake of OER in particular 

  As  above,  seek  funding/guidance  from  non-governmental  entities,  e.g.  foundations  and 

private partners. 

  Look  to  those  states  with  the  most  OER  experience  at  the  state  policy  level  for  sample 

implementation models. 

  Encourage  cross-border  meetings,  partnerships  and  consortia  –  states  will  have  many 
completely  different  concerns,  but  will  have  at  least  one  critical  common  driver:  saving 
money. 
Take advantage of any/all links to higher education partners. 

 

  Seek  out/designate  OER  Champions  in  each  state  to  lead  the  way  and,  hopefully,  work 

together through development/implementation hurdles. 

11 

 
3. 

Implementing  cross-border  curricula/syllabi  at  the 
European level 

This chapter summarises the evidence provided by current initiatives, and identifies and discusses 
the issues involved, including how they might impact the three main education sectors of schools, 
VET and higher education. 

3.1  Summary of the evidence from current initiatives 

There is evidence from some of the developments we have documented that leadership (whether 
governmental,  commercial  or  non-profit)  can  play  an  important  role  in  stimulating  cross-border 
initiatives. This thread runs through most of the issues discussed below. 

Firstly,  the  evidence  from  the  inventory  of  initiatives  shows  that  some  syllabi  (and  their 
content) are used cross-border intentionally. 

This  is  clearly  the  case  with  the  International  Baccalaureate  (IB)40 and  the  Cambridge  suite  of 
qualifications. The IB has a substantial footprint in the EU: some, or all, of the four IB curricula are 
offered  in  all  28  EU  Member  States.41 The  Diploma  programme  is  the  most  popular,  with  449 
offerings,  although  138  of  these  are  in  the  UK  and  the  only  other  countries  with  more  than  20 
schools  offering  this  are  Germany  (60),  Poland  (37)  and  Spain  and  Sweden  (32  in  each).  The 
Diploma is recognised for matriculation purposes by 313 universities across the EU, but a third of 
these are in the UK (105) and elsewhere only Germany (31), Netherlands (26) and France (23) have 
more  than  20.  However,  the  total  number  of  universities  accepting  the  diploma  is  still  only  just 
above  10%  of  the  European  total.  Examinations  are  held  in  English,  French  and  Spanish,  and 
teaching and resources may be in one or even two of 10 languages, depending on the IB School. 

The Cambridge IGCSE42 is the world’s most popular international qualification for 14-16 year olds. 
It  is  widely  recognised  by  universities  and  employers  across  the  world,  now  with  over  10,000 
schools  in  over  160  countries  around  the  world  offering  Cambridge  qualifications.  It  is,  however, 
not possible to discern a broader footprint for IGCSE across the EU than is the case for the IB. 

CIE  started  a  primary  years’  programme  in  2004  called  Cambridge  Primary  to  affiliate  primary 
schools  and  provide  curriculum  support  to  them.  This  is  the  newer  of  two  English  language 
international primary curricula: the more established one is the International Primary Curriculum,43 
now used by more than 250,000 children in 1,600 member schools  in 92 countries. 

The IB, the Cambridge suite and the International Primary Curriculum are all in English. This raises 
issues connected with portability and languages (see sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 below). However, the 
ECDL,44 which is available in all 28 EU Member States, is offered in national languages, though not 
in minority languages within Member States. 

Secondly,  some  content  is  used  cross-border  even  if  not  intentionally  created  for  that 
purpose.  Good  examples  of  these  are  IT  vendor  qualifications  –  e.g.  Java,  Microsoft  and  Cisco. 
Many  MOOCs  attract 
learners  from  all  over  the  world  and  they  have  hastened  the 
internationalisation of higher education, so that traditional national boundaries are being affected. 

40 http://www.ibo.org 
41 http://www.ibo.org/en/about-the-ib/the-ib-by-country/ 
42 http://www.cie.org.uk/programmes-and-qualifications/cambridge-secondary-2/cambridge-igcse/  
43 http://www.greatlearning.com/ipc/ 
44 http://www.ecdl.org/index.jsp 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
An  ongoing  JRC-IPTS  study  (MOOCKnowledge45)  on  MOOC  learners  found  that  the  participants  in 
MOOCs closely follow language alignments of the hosting institute, e.g. the majority of participants 
in  Spanish  MOOCs  come  from  Spain  or  other  Spanish-speaking  countries  outside  of  the  EU  (i.e. 
mainly  Central  and  South  America)  and  that  a  MOOC  offered  by  a  Dutch  operator  also  has 
attracted participants from Belgium.  

Thirdly, there is evidence of some collaboration and leadership that has stimulated cross-
border  OER  usage  thanks  to  common  goals.  Within  North  America  the  Common  Core  State 
Standards  in  the  USA  and  the  tri-province  agreement  between  British  Columbia,  Alberta  and 
Saskatchewan are useful examples, though the impact on learning outcomes from both of these is 
still a matter for debate. 

Within  Europe  over  the  past  decade  Germany  has  demonstrated  that  a  devolved  governmental 
structure need not necessarily be a barrier to shared curricula. Before Germany participated in the 
international  PISA  tests46 in  2000,  there  had  been  little  interest  in  international  comparisons  and 
benchmarking.  The  2000  PISA  results  shocked  the  nation  and  started  to  reveal  a  disturbingly 
uneven  (and  low)  picture  of  attainment  across  the  different  Länder,  and  even  within  each  Land. 
This provoked a broad-based reaction across the Länder, with both sides of the political divide and 
key  stakeholders  such  as  the  teaching  unions  coming  together  to  propose  a  range  of  national 
reforms.47 The federal German government has continued to play a leadership role in the broader 
e-learning field; the Development Minister has recruited experts from home and abroad for  “New 
technologies as a door opener for sustainable development”, focusing on access to knowledge and 
education, networking and making data and resources”.48 

The  Learning  Resource  Exchange’s  ‘Travel  well’  work  and  the  Dutch  teachers  decision  to  use  the 
Flemish  Klascement  portal  (described  in  more  detail  in  section  2.1.2  above)  are  other  useful 
examples of collaboration through leadership. 

3.2  Emerging issues 

Based on the inventory of cross-border initiatives and related literature, six main areas emerge that 
are  explored  below.  Some  of  these  issues  are  generic  for  any  cross-border  use  of  educational 
initiatives, whereas others are specific to the issue of OER. These areas are the following: financial 
issues  and  sustainability;  portability;  language;  accreditation;  sectoral  traditions  and  governance; 
and the bundle of general issues that impact all e-learning innovation and development, including 
teacher training and CPD. 

3.2.1  Educational reforms, financial issues and sustainability 

Financial aspects of implementing educational reforms are often the subject of hard debates and 
diverse points of views. Taking the example of our previous case study on the Common Core State 
Standards,  a  US  study  (Murphy  et  al.,  2012)  looked  into  possible  cost  savings  by  states 
implementing the new standards in Mathematics and English Language Arts. It finds that “(States) 
could save about $927 million – or spend as much as $8.3 billion – depending on the approaches 
they  choose  in  three  vital  areas:  curriculum  materials,  tests,  and  professional  development.”  In 
Europe, on the other hand, against the background of the economic crisis starting in 2008, one of 
the main arguments for OER is their potential to reduce costs of education and training (Alquézar 
Sabadie et al., 2014). However there are, as yet, no convincing studies demonstrating whether this 

45 http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/OpenEduMOOC.html 
46 http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ 
47 http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46581323.pdf 
48 News item from Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), 23 
January 2015 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
can  be  substantiated  in  the  European  context  where  the  situation  between  countries  and  even 
between  different  schools  in  the  same  country  may  vary  regarding  textbook  cost  per  student. 
According to Key Data in Europe on Education, in the EU-27, staff costs represent an average 70% 
of annual education expenditure whereas 14% go to purchasing educational material, but also to 
maintaining buildings and other operational costs (Eurydice, 2012). 

However,  some  recent  US  studies,  largely  around  CCSS,  provide  some  evidence  in  this  direction 
(Murphy et al., 2014; Waters, 2013). One study suggest that use of open textbooks could save over 
50%  of  textbook  costs  without  negatively  affecting  educational  outcomes  (Wiley  et  al.,  2012b); 
another  finds  that  students  not  only  see  significant  savings  but  also  score  higher  in  OER-based 
courses  than  in  those  based  on  commercial  materials.49 This  could  represent  a  partial  solution, 
though it should not be forgotten that educational materials (paper-based and digital) amount to 
much less than 10% of the overall costs of education.50 

Despite the potential of OER for reducing the costs of education, there are important debates on 
the  sustainability  of  OER  initiatives  (Downes,  2007;  Meiszner,  2012).  The  current  reliance  on 
government and institutional funding is a cause for concern, as it discourages the development of 
alternative  revenue  streams  such  as  paid-for  services,  cross-sector  partnerships,  advertising  or 
membership. Governments and institutions appear to lack confidence in OER as a viable long-term 
investment as a cheaper alternative to textbooks. From a public policy perspective, it is important 
to understand how to integrate public and non-public funding models to reduce education cost and 
maximize public investment returns. 

Paraphrasing Alquézar Sabadie et al. (2014) : 

OER  challenge  the  traditional  business  models  of  the  software  industry,  scientific 
publishers  and  the  audio  visual  sector.  In  the  area  of  OER,  commercial  and  non-
commercial actors need some time to establish common spaces in a marketplace that 
is  radically  evolving  (ELIG,  2011).  Different  visions  about  what  the  Internet  is  and 
should  be  must  be  confronted.  For  some,  the  Internet  is  a  space  of  freedom, 
characterised  by  social  relations  that  allow  sharing,  re-using  and  discussing  content 
without necessarily any commercial interest. There are several examples of this vision, 
the  most  obvious  of  which  is  probably  Wikipedia.  Indeed,  major  companies  have 
implemented fora on their websites where their clients can discuss their problems, with 
very  little  intervention  from  the  provider.  These  enterprises  have  understood  that  the 
Internet can be a space that works on its own, and allows them to save money in post-
sales  services.  For  others,  the  Internet  is  the  continuation  of  traditional  markets,  and 
requires adapted regulations with a centralised control. 

3.2.2  Portability: curriculum compatibility 

If syllabi and curricula are to operate effectively across borders (whether these are geographical, 
political,  cultural,  pedagogic  or  linguistic)  then  portability  of  resources  is  important.  For  example, 
Clements & Pawlowski (2012) found that curriculum compatibility problems were one of the major 
barriers for teachers to share OER. The LRE addresses the issues of portability through criteria for 

49 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131002005507/en/Fall-Semester-OER-Projects-Lumen-
Learning-Yield 
50 A simple calculation based on the reported cost of textbooks 
(http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/why-are-college-textbooks-so-absurdly-
expensive/266801/) and the out-of-state fee, a proxy for true cost (http://www.topuniversities.com/student-
info/student-finance/how-much-does-it-cost-study-us) suggests a figure of just under 3% in the US 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
resources that ‘travel well’ across national and cultural borders. The LRE identifies seven criteria for 
‘travel well’ resources and digital learning object quality, with examples for each criterion.51 

There are significant numbers of listed resources in STEM subjects, especially in Mathematics. With 
Mathematics as a universal language, this offers a potentially fruitful area for developing shared 
curricula  and  resources  and  side-stepping  issues  of  portability.  IT  vendor  qualifications  are  also 
portable.  The  Cisco  Networking  Academy,52 Java  Developer  Tutorials  and  Training53 and 
Microsoft  Learning54 have  already  been  identified  as  possible  models  for  future  development, 
provided the interests of these commercial companies can be addressed. 

3.2.3  Language issues 

The  use  of  a  world  language  –  e.g.  English,  French  or  Spanish  –  or  a  widely-spoken  European 
language  such  as  German  –  may  enable  a  greater  number  of  learners  to  make  use  of  OER  and 
syllabi  across  borders.  Within  Europe  two  of  the  most  significant  cross-border  curricula  in  the 
schools  sector  are  currently  based  in  English  –  the  International  Baccalaureate  and  the 
International Primary Curriculum. 

Where languages are shared across national borders in the EU – e.g. Dutch in the Netherlands and 
Flanders,  French  in  France  and  Wallonia,  or  German  in  Germany  and  Austria  –  there  are 
opportunities for collaboration; an active example of this is the Dutch government’s contribution to 
Klascement. This is a good illustration of the role of bottom-up initiatives: the Dutch government’s 
input  came  from  the  realisation  that  many  Dutch  teachers  were  making  use  of  the  Flemish 
resources. 

As in the case of Mathematics discussed above, where subject matter uses a global ‘language’ – i.e. 
easily  translatable  concepts  –  there  are  significant  opportunities  to  develop  shared  OER.  Other 
STEM  subjects  provide  potentially  fertile  ground:  a  useful  example  is  PhET  Interactive 
Simulations,55 a  project  at  the  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  started  in  2002,  originally  to 
employ technology to improve Physics education, but now expanded to include Chemistry, Biology, 
Earth Sciences and Mathematics as well. The project simulations have been translated into over 65 
different languages, including Spanish, German, Arabic and Chinese. 

Minority and lesser-used languages (LUL) may prove a barrier to co-operation within countries, let 
alone  between  them.  Whilst  there  are  large  amounts  of  OER  in  English,  Spanish  and  French,  the 
LangOER project56 reports relatively few in LUL (lesser used languages). There are some examples 
of multilingual repositories which could facilitate cross-border syllabi for EU citizens whose mother 
tongue is a LUL: including  HITSA57 and Koolielu,58 two Estonian multilingual repositories; LORO59 
run  by  the  Open  University;  and  Language  Box60 run  by  University  of  Southampton.  The  OER 
metadata  repository  of  the  Learning  Resource  Exchange61 has  already  been  mentioned  and 
another useful site is UNESCO’s IITE Open Education Resources Gateway.62 

51 http://lreforschools.eun.org/web/guest/travel-well 
52 http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/netacad/index.html 
53 http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index-jsp-135888.html 
54 https://www.microsoft.com/learning/en-gb/default.aspx 
55 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhET_Interactive_Simulations 
56 http://www.LangOER.eun.org 
57 http://www.hitsa.ee 
58 http://www.koolielu.ee 
59 http://loro.open.ac.uk 
60 http://languagebox.co.uk 
61 http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/resource/learning-resource-exchange-lre 
62 http://iite.unesco.org/oer_and_digital_pedagogy/oer/gateway/ 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Across  the  Atlantic  in  Mexico,  Temoa63 is  a  repository  of  material  in  more  than  10  languages 
maintained  by  Tecnológico  de  Monterrey,64 and  in  the  United  States,  Language  Resource  Centres 
(LRCs)  join  forces  on  a  unique  portal  containing  OER  in  several  languages,  with  the  Center  for 
Open  Educational  Resources  &  Language  Learning  (COERLL)65 of  the  University  of  Texas 
playing  a leading  role  on OER  in the  last  decade.  These  examples  demonstrate the value  of OER 
from a global perspective and the potential use of international multilingual repositories to support 
both cross-border curricula and linguistic diversity in Europe. 

Within  MOOCs,  the  EMMA66 project  takes  a  deliberately  multilingual,  multicultural  approach  to 
learning  by  offering  inbuilt  translation  and  transcription  services  for  courses  hosted  on  the 
platform. 

3.2.4  Accreditation and recognition of qualifications 

The  term  ‘cross-border  education’  in  general  refers  to  the  movement  of  people,  programmes, 
providers,  knowledge,  ideas,  projects  and  services  across  national  boundaries.  In  2005,  UNESCO 
and  the  OECD  describe  it  as  “higher  education  that  takes  place  in  situations  where  the  teacher, 
student,  program,  institution/provider  or  course  materials  cross  national  jurisdictional  borders. 
Cross-border education may include higher education by public/private and not-for-proﬁt/for-proﬁt 
providers.” (UNESCO, 2005) 

In  a  recent  European  study,  Delivering  Education  across  Borders  in  the  European  Union 
(Brandenburg et al., 2013), the provision of cross-border higher education services in the EU was 
investigated.  The  report  identified  this  phenomenon  as  provider  mobility,  i.e.  franchising  or 
validation of higher education programmes and the opening of branch campuses in other countries. 
The  report  claims  that  such  practices  have  been  proliferating  at  a  quick  pace  and  identify  more 
than 250 cross-border Higher-Education activities within the EU-27. The study hints that in Europe, 
the  trend  still  remains  “quite  scattered  and  fragmented”  and  the  authors  show  that  cross-border 
higher education affects only a very small minority of students within the EU. However, the authors 
estimate that it is on an upward curve.  The evidence indicates that we are talking about a global 
trend which has been taking place over a period of 10 years. 

Cross-border  education,  especially  in  the  field  of  HE  and  VET,  risks  the  creation  of  a  jungle  of 
qualifications.  The  extent  to  which  they  are  recognised  by  different  institutions  and  in  different 
countries is also an issue when attempting to develop  shared syllabi and curricula  – yet  it ought 
also to be an opportunity. The complexity has led to the development of a range of websites and 
brokerage  organisations  designed  to  guide  university  admissions  officers  and  potential  students 
through the jungle – e.g. ENIC-NARIC.67 

The major initiative to develop a common accreditation framework across Europe over the past ten 
years has been the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). The main access point for EQF 
developments is the Ploteus portal.68 Its website asserts that the EQF initiative is closely related to 
the qualifications framework for the European Higher Education Area: that the two frameworks are 
compatible and their implementation is coordinated at national and European level. Although there 
have been calls for the Bologna Process69 to be re-visited, with a view towards greater recognition 

63 http://www.temoa.info 
64 http://www.itesm.mx/wps/portal?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT 
65 http://www.coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/ 
66 http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/project/emma-0 
67 http://www.enic-naric.net 
68 https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/how-does-eqf-work 
69 http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/QF/Bologna_Framework_and_Certification_revised_29_02_08.pdf 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of competences (Bacsich, 2014: Recommendation 5), the European higher education framework is 
better co-ordinated than European VET. 

However,  progress  in  developing  the  EQF  has  been  slower  than  the  planned  timetable:  by  2012 
only  13  Member  States  had  produced  referencing  reports  matching  their  national  qualification 
frameworks against EQF. Since then, a further five have produced referencing reports (and Iceland 
as well), but this leaves ten EU Member States which have not done so. 

There are also European projects and initiatives to develop and harmonise the recognition of prior 
learning and informal learning. Many universities, though, retain individual policies and practice and 
VET qualifications do not yet recognise or put a value on informal learning. Lack of uniformity in 
recognising  prior  and/or  informal  learning  remains  a  significant  barrier  to  the  development  of 
shared  syllabi.  However,  progress  is  being  made  in  several  Member  States,  as  noted  by  Souto-
Otero  (2013)  especially  in  Chapter  3  and  his  EU  map  on  page  28.  The  POERUP  project  made 
specific recommendations to advance this area, in HE (Bacsich, 2014: Recommendations 6 and 7) 
and in VET (Pepler, 2013: Recommendations Group 7). 

3.2.5  Sectoral traditions and governance 

Across the EU there are wide variations in the extent and nature of central government control over 
school  and  VET  education  and  training,  from  micro-management  of  expenditure  and  curricula 
through to broad institutional autonomy – and sometimes, as in England, an apparently paradoxical 
mixture of the two extremes – whilst universities maintain a high degree of autonomy, especially 
private  universities.  Some  of  these  variations  are  linked  with  political  and  administrative 
organisation in Member States, whilst others reflect long-standing cultural differences in the nature 
of management through government. 

Whilst overall management of education is undertaken by the Member State in most EU countries, 
a number have devolved regional administrations whose powers may impact aspects of education 
and the development of open education practices. The POERUP country reports70 detail significant 
examples of a number of individual  countries where this is wholly or partially the case, including 
the UK, Germany, Austria, Spain and Belgium. In Spain the school curriculum is nationally organised, 
but  the  ‘states’  (communidades  autónomas)  have  a  number  of  responsibilities,  including  school 
admissions  and  the  allocation  of  teachers;  in  Belgium  the  differences  in  school  systems  are 
relatively small, but they are greater in higher education.71 However, as noted in section 3.1 above, 
Germany currently provides a good example of national concerns overriding regional differences. 

The situation is similar within countries. OECD (2009 reports (p. 39) that: 

In  all  but  four  TALIS  countries  (Malaysia,  Malta,  Mexico  and  Turkey)  over  90%  of 
teachers worked in schools with considerable responsibility for choosing the textbooks 
used in the courses they teach[…]. Fewer teachers in TALIS countries worked in schools 
whose school principal reported considerable school-level responsibility for determining 
course content. On average across TALIS countries, 66% of teachers worked in schools 
which  had  this  responsibility.  This  was  more  common  in  Denmark,  Hungary  and  Italy 
where  over  95%  of  teachers  worked  in  schools  with  considerable  responsibility  in 
determining the content of courses they teach but is found less frequently in Bulgaria 
(28%), Malaysia (33%), Mexico (33%) and Turkey (27%). 

70 http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/Countries 
71 http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/Belgium 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Thus whereas the open textbook movement has gained some traction in the US, and in Europe the 
Poland  government  is  continuing  to  invest  in  its  Digital  School  Programme,72 several  European 
countries  would  find  it  hard  to  accept  a  standard  schools’  curriculum  driven  by  standardised 
textbooks. 

Universities operate in an increasingly competitive market, both across Europe and globally. In this 
environment, universities tend to claim their approach is unique and try to differentiate themselves 
from competitor institutions, and many of the prestigious universities are now selling their products 
world-wide. There are international MOOC consortia forming: two of the most significant European 
examples are FutureLearn73 which now has 50 partners and Iversity,74 of potentially significant 
strategic  importance  to  the  wider  Germanophone  community  and  mapped  into  ECTS.75 This  can 
militate against the development of shared syllabi/curricula, except possibly in first-year curricula 
and specialist service teaching (e.g. Statistics, Calculus). 

Whilst  competition  and  differentiation  continue  to  permeate  the  HE  environment,  it  is  perhaps 
unsurprising  that  even  in  the  open  universities  in  Europe  there  are  few  current  examples  of 
common  syllabi/curricula.  However,  in  the  STEM  area  in  particular  there  is  a  strong  case  for 
developing further research as POERUP has recommended (Bacsich, 2014: Recommendation 8) and 
this is explored in sections 4 and 5 below. 

Cross-border curricula and syllabi within the European schools sector have been described earlier in 
this  paper.  In  addition  to  those  already  highlighted,  there  is  the  Matura  or  a  similar  term 
(Mature,  Matur,  Maturita,  Maturità,  Maturität,  Mатура), 
the  high-
school  exit  exam  or  ‘maturity  diploma’  in  various  countries,  largely,  though  not  exclusively,  in 
eastern  and  south-eastern  Europe.  Whilst  there  are  clearly  major  political  issues  standing  in  the 
way of any harmonisation and cross-border syllabi, there are a number of components which are 
common  to  all,  or  almost  all  of  the  countries.  Mathematics  is  compulsory  almost  throughout 
(voluntary  only  in  the  Czech  Republic)  and  proficiency  in  the  native  language  is  tested  in  all  the 
countries.  Sciences  are  compulsory  in  some,  but  even  where  they  are  optional  the  same  STEM 
subjects appear in the curriculum. Proficiency in a non-native language is a common feature in all 
countries. In many of them a range of such languages is available. 

the  common  name 

for 

Whilst  the  variants  of  the  Matura  may  not  offer  a  realistic  opportunity  for  the  development  of 
common  syllabi,  the  commonalities  clearly  offer  the  possibility  of  developing  OER  to  serve 
languages, the sciences and Mathematics. 

The  same  is  equally  true  for  the  Spanish  Bachillerato  and  the  French  Baccalauréat.  The 
Bachillerato is common to Spanish-speaking countries – hence widely used in Hispanic America as 
well as in Spain – although the format may vary and has recently been amended in Spain itself. 

Just as there are very few OER in VET, so there are very few examples of common syllabi/curricula, 
except in the IT vendor area. 

3.2.6  General issues impacting e-learning innovation and development 

Many of the issues general to all e-learning innovations and development present barriers to the 
development  of  shared  OER  and  cross-border  syllabi,  even  though  they  are  not  specific  to  these 
areas. 

72 http://oermap.org/evidence/digital-school-program-in-poland/ 
73 https://www.futurelearn.com 
74 https://iversity.org 
75 http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/ects_en.htm 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Technology  infrastructure  is  one  of  these:  the  most  recent  Survey  of  Schools:  ICT  in  Education 
(European Schoolnet/University of Liège, 2013) notes that: 

Policies and action at infrastructure level are still needed to enable the large majority 
of students, at all grades, to be in highly digitally equipped schools as defined above. 
These  policies,  putting  the  focus  on  providing  laptops  (or  tablets,  netbooks,  etc.)  and 
interactive  whiteboards,  would  help  to  overcome  what  is  still  considered  by 
practitioners as the major obstacle to ICT use. 

The same report discusses teacher professional development – a key area in developing the use of 
OER.  European  education  and  training  institutions  often  lack  the  vision  or  capacity  to  promote 
innovative teaching methods and an integrated use of technologies. 

19 

 
 
4.  Areas for further investigation 

This chapter builds on the research of initiatives and overall analysis to outline areas where further 
investigation might usefully be attempted. 

Drawing  on  our  research  and  analysis,  therefore,  we  suggest  seven  areas  suitable  for  further 
investigation:  

1.  how key current collaborative initiatives might be further developed;  
2.  exploring  the  potential  for  extended  collaborative  initiatives  in  particular  subject  and 

content areas, specifically STEM and languages;  

3.  collaboration between commercial and non-profit actors;  
4.  further  research  into  the  potential  economic  benefits  of  shared  OER  and  cross-border 

curricula; 

5.  exploring the potential for upscaling ‘seed corn’ and bottom-up initiatives; 
6.  exploring the transferability of current government-level initiatives;  
7.  validation of informal learning. 

Although each of these areas is discussed separately in the following sub-sections, in reality there 
are considerable overlaps between some of the separate headings which are indicated in the text. 
It would be possible to combine some of the potential research areas. 

4.1  Building on current collaboration 

As noted previously, there are a number of European-wide, national and/or regional initiatives that 
invest  in  the  creation  and  re-use  of  open  textbooks  and  OER,  and  in  the  related  pedagogical 
practices  (e.g.  through  teacher  professional  development).  Policy-makers  at  the  European  and 
Member  State  level  could  seek  to  foster  more  exploratory  investigation  in  the  area  of  common 
cross-border  syllabi  and  curricula  with  a  clear  vision  similarly  to  the  K-12  OER  Collaborative 
initiative that started in the US in November 2014.  

In  particular, multi-stakeholder  initiatives  including national  and  regional  decision-makers  as  well 
as professional organisations (e.g. teachers associations; publishers), and public and private content 
producers could offer potentially viable collaboration, benefiting not only single Member States, but 
also  giving  an  outlook  that,  in  the  longer  term,  might  form  a  pillar  of  the  development  of  a 
European  connected  digital  single  market  in  what  comes  to  cross-border  education  in  the  large 
sense of the term. 

4.2  Developing content and subject areas: STEM and languages 

The  European  economic  and  jobs  agenda  highlights  proficiency  in  STEM  subjects,  digital  literacy 
and multilingualism as key factors in growth and prosperity. The possibilities and practicalities of 
developing shared OER-based curricula in these areas could usefully be further researched. 

Of all the STEM subjects Mathematics is the one which could lend itself most effectively to cross-
border  curricula  and  sharing  OER  across  the  borders.  It  is,  after  all,  a  universal  language  and 
although  approaches  to  teaching  and  learning  may  vary,  the  subject  matter  does  not.  The  right 
Mathematics  knowledge  and  skills  are  especially  important  at  the  transition  stage  to  higher 
education, so that students are fully equipped to tackle the first year of undergraduate studies in 
subjects  where  Mathematics  is  either  the  main  course,  or  an  underpinning  subject.  In  terms  of 
potential  shared  curricula,  it  would  be  worth  exploring  the  potential  offered  by  the  work  of  the 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Bourbaki  Group,76 which  has  influenced  both  the  French  Mathematics  curriculum  and  the  UK’s 
School Mathematics Project (SMP).77 

Another  subject  area  which  emerges  from  the  widespread  use  (and  currency)  of  vendor 
qualifications is in Computer Science, which is not likely to change from its current importance. This 
area also offers the possibility of exploring vendor-led common syllabi and curricula. For example, 
many  European  countries  have  recently  been  moving  towards  teaching  of  computer  coding  in 
schools, as part of a world-wide movement.78 More generally, the drive for digital literacy remains 
important  for  all  age  groups  and  at  all  levels  of  education.  The  ECDL79 is  a  potential  vehicle  for 
this;  it  is  already  a  cross-border  curriculum  and  the  development  of  a  wider  range  of  OER  to 
support it would be beneficial. 

In languages there are a number of resources cited by the LangOER study project80 across Europe. 
The project is currently investigating the issues surrounding the development of OER in LUL (lesser 
used languages). 

Building on this research, combined with other studies and leveraging on experience from students, 
it  would  be  valuable  to  look  at  the  possibilities  for  shared  syllabi/curricula  supported  by  OER 
resources in language groupings where  the languages are  (a)  either shared across borders or  (b) 
are sufficiently similar to enable access (reading or listening for study purposes) from each country 
in the linguistic community.  

Potential examples of these mostly within EU Member States would include, under category (a), the 
wider  French,  Dutch  and  German-speaking  communities;  and  under  category  (b)  the  groups  of 
countries  speaking  the  Continental  Scandinavian,  Balto-Finnic  and  Eastern  Baltic  groups  of 
languages  (Sweden/Norway/Denmark;  Finland/Estonia;  Lithuania/Latvia).  There  are  more  such 
groupings  within  the  wider  set  of  European  countries  that  can  take  part  in  the  Erasmus+ 
Programme. 

Note  that  the  two  groups  shade  into  each  other  in  that  language  ‘ownership’  is  related  to 
nationhood – for an example adjacent to the EU, the debate as to whether the Moldovan language 
is  or  is  not  identical  to  the  Romanian  language  (coded  ro  in  ISO  639-1)  is  a  political  not  just  a 
linguistic  issue  and  can  be  construed  differently  at  different  dates  and  under  different  political 
regimes.81 

Finally,  some  other  professions  with  strong  Europe-wide  relevance  and  some  years’  worth  of 
existing  activities  generating  a  ‘European  curriculum’,82 such  as  medicine  and  nursing,  could  be 
areas in which to invest in shared curricula and materials. 

76 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki 
77 www.smpmaths.org.uk 
78 See http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf from the US, 
http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/ComputingCurric.pdf from the UK and 
http://ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/fullpapers/64-Gasson.pdf from New Zealand 
79 http://www.ecdl.com 
80 http://langoer.eun.org 
81 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_language 
82 In the case of nursing see for example 
http://www.ccnurca.eu/sites/dbtcg2.acad.kahosl.be/files/deliverables/ANALYSIS%20OF%20CURRENT%20SITUA
TION%20IN%20EU%20AND%20WB_0.docx  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3  Collaboration between commercial and non-profit actors 

In considering the potential of vendor qualifications to facilitate open education and support shared 
OER  and  cross-border  curricula  it  is  worth  noting  that  European  publishers  including  Pearson, 
Bertelsmann and Sanoma already produce a wide variety of online resources, not only in English. 
Rather than re-running the simplistic ‘open textbook’ adversarial debate, it might be more fruitful 
to explore joint ways forward for types of resources other than textbooks in support of learning. It 
also  might  be  well  worth  investigating  the  potential  for  leveraging  vendor  qualifications  to 
generate cross-border curricula and OER, again perhaps initially through support material. 

4.4  Researching potential economic benefits 

Within  the  open  education  movement,  people  need  no  convincing  that  there  will  be  benefits  to 
learners  through  developing  cross-border  curricula  supported  by  OER.  Outside  that  movement, 
convincing  national  governments  is  another matter.  Quite  apart  from  political  considerations  and 
any concerns about loss of control, the economic benefits need to be clearly spelt out. This requires 
two types of actions. 

In a climate of continued economic difficulty and a search for best value for money, it is important 
to  find  evidence  for  the  economic  benefits  from  sharing  cross-border  syllabi/curricula  and  open 
educational resources; however, such curricula and resources will not come about without up-front 
costs  (e.g.  curriculum  development)  and  annual  recurrent  costs  (teacher  training,  materials 
updating).  Possibilities  for  OER  could  be  manifold,  even  if  the  current  model  of  OER  production 
rarely provides business models for sustainable OER.  

Thus one type of action is to engage in further monitoring of efforts related to ‘Open Education’ at 
the  regional  and  national  level  which  could  be  built  into  on-going  monitoring  of  ICT  indicators 
within the EU, including cost-savings. In the US, the development of CCSS has generated a number 
of studies of the potential cost benefits of OER and sharing – these are cited in section 3.2.1 above. 
But the parallel European studies are not there. 

The other type of action is to carry out further research to develop a cost/benefit framework which 
could be applied in both national and trans-national contexts to business models of OER. There is a 
considerable amount of work to do here since the subject  of cost/benefits of online learning has 
also  neglected  in  Europe  since  the  start  of  the  millennium,  as  noted  by  the  report  by  Bacsich 
(2008) for the UK agency JISC, and with little progress in the last six years. Any such study needs 
to be split into sub-studies on HE and schools, which have very different approaches to funding and 
often  different  Ministries  in  charge.  Even  in  HE  one  has  to  bear  in  mind  the  different  funding 
models  across  and  in  some  cases  within  Member  States  –  and  between  undergraduate  and 
postgraduate studies. Thus such studies are not simple. 

4.5  Upscaling ‘bottom-up’ and ‘seed corn’ initiatives 

The UK North West Consortium83 is an example where seed funding, initially through the JISC/HEA 
OER programme, has been sustained beyond the end of project funding ‘under the radar’ through 
grassroots  activity  within  the  HEIs  concerned.  There  will  be  other  examples  of  similar  bottom-up 
initiatives which further research could explore, in order to establish the critical success factors for 
growth of this nature. One potentially important success factor is likely to be the nature of the OER 
community or communities involved – the work of Schreurs et al. (2014) explores the key success 
factors within OER communities. 

83 https://www.jcsonlineresources.org/regional-consortia/north-west-england-consortium 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.6   Transferability  of  existing  national  government-supported 
initiatives between countries and regions 

Alquézar Sabadie et al (2014) assert that: 

The role of a public policy should be to create framework conditions that allow all sorts 
of practices and business models, without artificial barriers to innovation. A European-
wide framework could stimulate the creation of digital technology tailored to education 
and  training  purposes  and  the  supply  of  quality  digital  content,  including  OER.  This 
would  allow  individuals,  schools,  training  institutions  and  universities  to  be  better 
equipped  to  capitalise  on  (past  or  present)  public  investments  in  upgrading  ICT 
infrastructure.  European  framework  conditions  could  also  boost  synergies  across 
countries  in  the  development  of  innovative  teaching  and  learning  practices  and  thus 
help to improve the quality of European education. 

One  country  with  a  declared  set  of  open  education  and  OER  policies  is  Slovenia.  One  European 
region with a similar set of policies is Wales. Slovenia has followed up its initial declaration with a 
range of projects84 and Wales has declared its intention to follow up its HE policy initiative in other 
education  sectors.  How  far  might  these  national  initiatives  be  replicable  across  the  smaller 
countries in the EU? And those with devolved administrations? 

4.7  Validation of informal learning 

The  European  Council  (2012)  Recommendation  on  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal 
learning and the UNESCO (2012) Paris Declaration both call for the recognition and accreditation of 
competences  acquired  through  OER,  for  example  by  means  of  small  units  of credit,  competency-
based  credits,  peer  reviews,  and  wide  availability  of  competency-based  testing.  These  have  been 
refined  by  POERUP  and  more  recent  studies  such  as  OpenCred.85 Official  recognition  and  quality 
schemes  could  increase  the  credibility  of  OER  at  little  cost,  raising  awareness  and  increasing 
uptake.  Innovative tests  and  assessment  formats can  further  increase  the  usefulness  of  OER  for 
lifelong  learners.  Such  schemes  could  readily  operate  across  borders  and  the  feasibility  of  this 
could usefully be further investigated. 

84 http://www.ouslovenia.net 
85 http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/OpenCred/ISUNITWEBSITE-IPTS-JRC-EC.htm and 
https://aisantos.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/opencred-study-assessment-and-recognition-in-open-learning/  

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Concluding remarks  

The aim of this study was to make an inventory of the existing cases within the context of formal 
education (school sector, vocational education and higher education) where a curriculum or syllabus 
is shared across borders (e.g. state, national, linguistic and cultural). Based on the analysis of the 
desk  research  and  a  case  study,  further  considerations  were  made  for  the  potential  of  Open 
Educational Resources, either existing or prospective.  

The  study  was  conducted  in  three  parts.  The  first  involved  scoping  and  classifying  cross-border 
syllabi/curricula  initiatives  and  their  drivers.  It  was  followed  by  a  detailed  case  study  of  the  US 
Common Core State Standards Initiative and its impact on OER. With both these elements brought 
together in this final report, the aim was to discuss the research findings and the issues they raise. 
The report further identified potential areas for investigation to leverage synergies between cross-
border syllabi/curricula and OER in the context of formal education in the EU. 

The study calls for visionary multi-stakeholder initiatives in the area of cross-border curricula and 
education  that  could  offer  potentially  viable  collaboration  on  Open  Educational  Resources 
benefiting not only single Member States, but also giving an outlook that, in the longer term, might 
form  a pillar  of  the  development  of  a  European  connected  digital  single market,  for  example  for 
boosting digital skills and learning. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  References 

6.1  General references 

Bacsich,  P. 

(2014).  Policy  advice 

for  universities.  Sheffield:  POERUP.  Retrieved  from: 

http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/D4.2U_Policy_advice_for_universities 

Brandenburg, U. et al. (2013). Delivering Education across Borders in the European Union. Brussels: 

European Union. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/borders_en.pdf 

Bristow, S.F. (2014). The Common Core State Standards Initiative and its impact on OER. Sheffield: 

SharedOER. Retrieved from: 
http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/File:SharedOER_D2-1.pdf 

Clements, K. I. & Pawlowski, J. M. (2012). “User‐oriented  quality for OER: Understanding teachers’ 

views on re‐use, quality, and trust”. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28(1). 

Council Recommendation 2012/C 398/01 of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal 

and informal learning. (2012). Retrieved from: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF 

European Schoolnet/University of Liège (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education − Benchmarking 
Access,  Use  and  Attitudes  to  Technology  in  Europe’s  Schools.  Belgium:  European  Union. 
Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf 

Jeans,  N.,  Pepler,  G.  &  Bacsich,  P.  (2014).  Towards  a  world  tour  for  Shared  OER.  Sheffield: 

SharedOER. Retrieved from: 
http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/File:SharedOER_D1-1.pdf 

OECD  (2009).  Creating  Effective  Teaching  and  Learning  Environments:  First  Results  from  TALIS. 

Paris: OECD. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf 

OECD  (2010).  “Germany:  Once  Weak  International  Standing  Prompts  Strong  Nationwide  Reforms 
for Rapid Improvement”. Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons 
from 
from: 
States. 
the 
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46581323.pdf 

Retrieved 

United 

OECD. 

Paris: 

PISA 

for 

Pepler,  G. 

(2013).  Policy  advice 

for 

colleges.  Sheffield:  POERUP.  Retrieved 

from: 

http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/D4.2C_Policy_advice_for_colleges 

Pepler, G. (2014). Overview of European and international policies relevant for the uptake of OER. 

Sheffield: POERUP. Retrieved from: 
http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/File:POERUP_D4.1_Overview_of_European_and_internationa
l_policies_relevant_for_the_uptake_of_OER_v1.0.pdf 

Phillips,  B.  &  Pepler,  G.  (2014).  Policy  advice  for  schools.  Sheffield:  POERUP.  Retrieved  from: 

http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/D4.2S_Policy_advice_for_schools 

Schreurs, B., et al. (2014). “An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open 

Educational Practices”. IRRODL 15 (4). Retrieved from: 
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1905/3047 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Schweighofer,  P.  et  al.  (2015).  “Technology  Enhanced  Learning  and  the  Digital  Economy:  A 
Literature Review”. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy 6(1). 

Souto-Otero, M. (2013). Review of credit accumulation and transfer policy 
and  practice  in  UK  higher  education.  York:  Higher  Education  Academy.  Retrieved  from: 

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Review_of_Transfer_of_Credit_R
eport.pdf 

UNESCO  (2005).  Guidelines  for  quality  provision  in  cross-border  higher  education.  Paris:  UNESCO. 

Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/education/guidelines_E.indd.pdf 

UNESCO (2012). Paris OER Declaration. World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress, June 

20-22, 2012. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from: 
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/Paris%20OER%20De
claration_01.pdf 

Vuorikari, R. & Koper, R. (2009). “Evidence of cross-boundary use and reuse of digital educational 

resources”. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 4(4). 

6.2  Common Core 

Achieve, Inc. (2013a). Closing the Expectations Gap: 2013 Annual Report on the Alignment of State 

K-12 Policies and Practice with the Demands of College and Careers. Washington, DC: 
Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from: 
http://www.achieve.org/files/2013ClosingtheExpectationsGapReport.pdf 

Achieve, Inc. (2013b). Policy Brief: State Support for Open Educational Resources: Key Findings from 
from: 

Achieve’s  OER 
http://www.achieve.org/files/OERInstitutePolicyBriefFINAL1.pdf 

Institute.  Washington,  DC: 

Retrieved 

Achieve, 

Inc. 

Bliss,  T.J.  &  Patrick,  S.  (2013).  OER  State  Policy  in  K-12  Education: Benefits,  Strategies,  and 
Recommendations for Open Access, Open Sharing. Washington, DC: iNACOL. Retrieved from: 
https://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/inacol_OER_Policy_Guide_v5_web.pdf 

CCSS  Initiative  (n.d.).  Common  Core  State  Standards  for  English  Language  Arts  &  Literacy  in 
History/Social  Studies,  Science,  and  Technical  Subjects.  Common  Core  State  Standards. 
Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf 

CCSS Initiative (n.d.). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics Appendix A: Designing High 
School Mathematics Courses Based on the Common Core State Standards. Common Core 
States Standards. Retrieved from: 
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Mathematics_Appendix_A.pdf 

CCSSO (2014). State of the States: Open Educational Resources in K-12 Education. Washington, DC: 

CCSSO. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2014/State%20of%20the%20States_OER%20in%20K12
%20Education.pdf 

Fletcher, J. et al. (2012). Out of Print: Reimagining the K-12 Textbook in a Digital Age. Washington, 

DC: SETDA. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Federal  Communications  Commission  (2010).  National  Broadband  Plan.  Washington,  DC:  FCC. 

Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan 

Gerald, C.D. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class 

Education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School 
Officers/Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from: 
http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0812BENCHMARKING.PDF 

Office of Educational Technology (2010). National Education Technology Plan. Washington, DC: US 

Department of Education. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf 

The  Digital  Textbook  Collaborative  (2012).  Digital  Textbook  Playbook.  Washington,  DC:  DTC. 

Retrieved from: http://transition.fcc.gov/files/Digital_Textbook_Playbook.pdf 

The Open Government Partnership (2013). Second Open Government National Action Plan for the 

United States of America. Washington, DC: OGP. Retrieved from: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/us_national_action_plan_6p.pdf 

The Open Government Partnership (2014). Announcing New Open Government Initiatives (Second 
Open Government National Action Plan for the United States of America). Washington, DC: 
OGP. Retrieved from: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/new_nap_commitments_repor
t_092314.pdf 

USC  §6575  (n.d.).  Prohibition  against  Federal  mandates,  direction,  or  control.  Retrieved  from: 

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title20-
section6575&num=0&edition=prelim#sourcecredit 

Waters, J.K. (2013). “OER and the Common Core”. T.H.E. Journal 40(2). 

6.3  Economic and business case 

Allen, N. (2011). Affordable textbooks for Washington’s students: A cost analysis of the 
Open Course Library. Boston: Student PIRGs. Retrieved from: 

http://www.studentpirgs.org/sites/student/files/resources/Affordable-Textbooks-For-
Washingtons-Students.pdf 

Alquézar Sabadie, J.M. et al. (2014). “OER: A European policy perspective”. JIME (1)5. Retrieved 

from: http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/download/2014-05/519 

Bacsich, P. (2008). Costs of E-Learning Scoping Exercise: Report to JISC Learning and Teaching 

Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.sero.co.uk/assets/celse_report.doc 

Bliss, T.J. et al. (2013). “The cost and quality of online open textbooks: Perceptions of community 

college faculty and students”. First Monday 18(1). Retrieved from: 
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3972/3383 

Butcher, N. & Hoosen, S. (2012). Exploring the Business Case for Open Educational Resources. 

British Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from: 
http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_OER_BusinessCase.pdf 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Butler Battaglino, T., et al. (2012). “The costs of online learning”. Creating Sound Policy for Digital 

Learning. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from: 
http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-costs-of-online-learning.html 

Daniel, J. et al. (2009). “Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality”. Change: 

The Magazine of Higher Learning 41(2). Retrieved from: 
http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/full-iron-
triangle.html 

Downes, S. (2007). “Models for sustainable open educational resources”. Interdisciplinary Journal of 

Knowledge and Learning Objects 3. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ijello.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf 

Eurydice (2012). "Key Data on Education in Europe 2012". Education, Audiovisual and Culture 

Executive Agency, Retrieved from:  
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf 

Glennie, J. et al. (2012). Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections 
from Practice. Vancouver: UNESCO/Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from: 
http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_PS_OER_web.pdf 

Helsdingen, A. et al. (2010). “Business models in OER: A contingency approach”. Proceedings of 

Open Ed 2010. Barcelona: UOC/OU/BYU. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/5039 

Hilton, J. et al. (2012) “Cost Savings, Learning Impacts and User Perceptions of Open Textbooks”. 

Proceedings of Cambridge 2012. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from: 
http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/5193190.pdf#page=94 

Hilton, J. (2014). “Cost-savings achieved in two semesters through the adoption of open 

educational resources”. IRRODL 15(2). Retrieved from: 
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1700/2833 

Hilton, J. & Wiley, D (2011). “Open access textbooks and financial sustainability: A case study on 

Flat World Knowledge”. IRRODL 12 (5). Retrieved from: 
http://hdl.handle.net/10515/sy57s7j58 

Houghton, J. W. & Oppenheim, C. (2010). “The economic implications of alternative publishing 

models”. Prometheus 28(1). 

Johansen, J. & Wiley, D. (2010). “A sustainable model for OpenCourseWare development”. 
Educational Technology Research & Development 59(3). Retrieved from: 
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/IR/id/1021 

Kanwar, A. et al. (2010). “Toward sustainable open education resources: A perspective from the 

global south”. The American Journal of Distance Education 24 (2). 

Meiszner, A. (2012). Business and sustainability models in Open Education: Concepts and examples 

in 2012. The Netherlands: United Nations University/UNU-Merit/CCG. 

Millard, M. (2014). “Open-source textbooks can help drive down the overall cost of college”. Denver: 

Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from: 
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/14/37/11437.pdf 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Murphy, P. et al. (2012). Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core. Washington, DC: Thomas B. 

Fordham Institute. Retrieved from: 
http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120530-Putting-A-Price-Tag-on-
the-Common-Core/20120530-Putting-a-Price-Tag-on-the-Common-Core-FINAL.pdf 

Plotkin, H. (2010). Free to Learn: An Open Educational Resources Policy Development Guidebook for 

Community College Governance Officials. San Francisco: Creative Commons. Retrieved 
from: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/6/67/FreetoLearnGuide.pdf 

Prasad, D. & Usagawa, T. (2014). “Scoping the possibilities: Student preferences towards open 

textbooks adoption for E-learning”. Creative Education 5(24). 

Prasad, D. & Usagawa, T. (2014). “Towards development of OER derived custom-built open 

textbooks: A baseline survey of university teachers at the University of the South Pacific”. 
IRRODL 15(4). Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1873/3005 

Robinson, T.J. et al. (2014). “The Impact of Open Textbooks on Secondary Science Learning”. 

Outcomes Educational Researcher 43(7). Retrieved from: 
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/43/7/341.full 

Willems, J. & Bossu, C. (2012). “Equity considerations for open educational resources in the 

globalization of education”. Distance Education 33(2). 

Wiley, D. et al. (2012a). Dramatically bringing down the cost of education with OER: How open 

education resources unlock the door to free learning. Washington, DC: Center for American 
Progress. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535639.pdf 

Wiley, D. et al. (2012b). “A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of 

using open textbooks in high school science classes”. IRRODL 13(3). Retrieved from: 
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1153/2256 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
30 

 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 27245 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Title: Cross-border Content. Investigation into Sharing Curricula across Borders and its Opportunities for Open Education 
Resources 

Authors: Giles Pepler, Sara Frank Bristow, Paul Bacsich Nick Jeans, Riina Vuorikari 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
2015 – 29 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 
ISBN 978-92-79-48249-6 (PDF) 
doi:10.2791/450706 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
7
2
4
5
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2791/450706 

ISBN 978-92-79-48249-6