EUR 27938 - Opening up Education : support framework for higher education institutions.
Date: 2017-04-28
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: education policy, higher education, information technology, new educational methods, new technology, non-formal education, open university, research report, university

Opening up Education 

A Support Framework for 
Higher Education 
Institutions  

Andreia Inamorato dos Santos 

Yves Punie 

Jonatan Castaño Muñoz 

2016  

EUR 27938 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Science for 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. 

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

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC101436 

EUR 27938 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-58537-1 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2791/293408 

LF-NA-27938-EN-N 

© European Union, 2016 

Reproduction and reuse  is authorised provided the  original  source  is acknowledged and the original  meaning  or 
message  of  the  documents  are  not  distorted.  The  European  Commission  shall  not  be  held  liable  for  any 
consequence 
see
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/open-education/legal-notice  

recommendations, 

information  and 

stemming 

further 

reuse. 

from 

the 

For 

How  to  cite:  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  A.,  Punie,  Y.,  Castaño-Muñoz,  J.  (2016)  Opening  up  Education:  A  Support 
Framework for Higher Education Institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN; doi:10.2791/293408 

All images © European Union 2016 

Abstract 

Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions 

This  report  presents  a  support  framework  for  higher  education  institutions  (HEIs)  to  open  up  education.  This 
framework proposes a wide definition of the term ‘open education’, which accommodates different uses, in order 
to  promote  transparency  and  a  holistic  approach  to  practice.  It  goes  beyond  OER,  MOOCs  and  open  access  to 
embrace 10 dimensions of open education. The framework can be used as a tool by HEI  staff to help them think 
through  strategic  decisions:  pedagogical  approaches,  collaboration  between  individuals  and  institutions, 
recognition of non-formal learning and different ways of making content available. Contemporary open education 
is mostly enabled by ICTs and because of this, there is almost limitless potential for innovation and reach, which 
in turn contributes to the modernisation of higher education in Europe. 

Table of contents  

Foreword.............................................................................................................. 2 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 3 

Executive summary ............................................................................................... 5 

1.  

Introduction .......................................................................................... 10 

1.1  

The concept of openness in opening up education .................................... 11 

2.   Research design and methodology ........................................................ 13 

2.1   Qualitative methods ............................................................................. 13 

2.1.1  

Case studies, interviews and desk research in OpenEdu ................... 14 

2.2   Quantitative methods ........................................................................... 15 

3.   Supporting findings to the framework from the OpenEdu studies ......... 16 

4.   A support framework for promoting openness in higher education 

institutions ............................................................................................ 22 

4.1   How to use the framework .................................................................... 23 

4.2  

The OpenEdu Framework ...................................................................... 23 

5.   The 10 dimensions of open education ................................................... 24 

5.1  

The core dimensions ............................................................................ 25 

5.1.1  

Access ....................................................................................... 25 

5.1.2  

Content ..................................................................................... 25 

5.1.3  

Pedagogy ................................................................................... 26 

5.1.4  

Recognition ................................................................................ 26 

5.1.5  

Collaboration .............................................................................. 26 

5.1.6  

Research ................................................................................... 27 

5.2  

The transversal dimensions ................................................................... 27 

5.2.1  

Strategy .................................................................................... 27 

5.2.2  

Technology ................................................................................ 27 

5.2.3   Quality ...................................................................................... 28 

5.2.4  

Leadership ................................................................................. 29 

6. 

Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................... 30 

References ......................................................................................................... 32 

Wikis 

 ............................................................................................................. 34 

List of abbreviations ............................................................................................ 34 

List of figures ...................................................................................................... 34 

List of tables ....................................................................................................... 34 

ANNEX I – The OpenEdu Framework ................................................................ 35 

ANNEX II – Strategic Planning Template for Opening up Education ................. 71 

1 

 
 
 
Foreword  

This  report  is  the  final  outcome  of  the  OpenEdu  Project,  which  aimed  to  support  the 
Communication ‘Opening up Education: Innovative Teaching and Learning for All through 
New  Technologies  and  Open  Educational  Resources’  (DG  EAC,  2013).  It  presents  open 
education  as  an  umbrella  term  under  which  different  understandings  of  open  education 
can be accommodated, such as open educational resources and MOOCs. The report also 
presents the main outcome of the OpenEdu project, the OpenEdu Framework for higher 
education institutions.  

This  Framework  identifies  10  dimensions  of  open  education,  giving  a  rationale  and 
descriptors for each. The goal is to promote transparency for collaboration and exchange 
of  practices  among  higher  education  institutions.  Without  a  framework,  stakeholders 
could  overlook  important  questions  and  could  put  effort  into  matters  that  need  little 
further investment. It is a tool to be used mainly by higher education institutions, but it 
is also very relevant for EU policy makers and other types of educational institutions. 

Other reports of the OpenEdu Project are: 

 

 

 

 

JRC IPTS report (2016) OpenCases: Case Studies on Openness in Education.  

JRC  IPTS  Report  (2016)  Validation  of  Non-formal  MOOC-based  Learning:  An 
Analysis of Assessment and Recognition Practices in Europe (OpenCred) 

JRC  IPTS  Report  (2016)  How  are  higher  education  institutions  dealing  with 
openness? A survey of practices, beliefs and strategies in five European countries 
(OpenSurvey) 

JRC IPTS Report (2015) OpenCases: A catalogue of mini cases on open education 
in Europe. 

OpenEdu  was  carried  out  by  JRC-IPTS  (Seville)  on  behalf  of  DG-EAC,  in  collaboration 
with other experts and organisations. 

Yves Punie 
Project Leader, ICT for Learning and Skills 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements  

The  OpenEdu  Project  benefited  from  the  input  and  collaboration  of  a  considerable 
number of stakeholders and experts throughout Europe and abroad, to whom the project 
team would like to express its gratitude. Many of these experts took part in the in-house 
workshops at IPTS and a pilot workshop in Berlin in 2015.  

Our  very  special  thanks  go  to  Directorate  General  Education  and  Culture  (DG  EAC) 
colleagues who have supported the OpenEdu project in different ways:  Deirdre Hodson, 
Geir Ottestad, Irina Sombre Nizovtseva, Julie Anderson, Klara Engels Perenyi, Konstantin 
Scheller  and  Margie  Waters.  Thanks  also  go  to  colleagues  from  Directorate  General 
Employment  (DG  Employment)  for  their  input  during  the  initial  phase  of  this  research: 
Ana  Carla  Pereira  and  Godelieve  Van  Den  Brande.  We  are  grateful  to  our  colleagues  at 
Directorate  General  Joint  Research  Centre  (DG  JRC)  for  their  team  work  and  support 
during  the  publication  process  of  the  OpenEdu's  various  study  reports  and  in-house 
workshops:  Maria  Dolores  Romero  Lopez,  Miguel  Querol,  Patricia  Farrer  and  Tanja 
Acuna. On the scientific side, we would like to thank the ICT for Learning and Skills team 
in  JRC  for  feedback  and  involvement  in  specific  occasions:  Christine  Redecker, 
Margherita Bacigalupo, Panagiotis Kampylis, Stephanie Carretero and Riina Vuorikari. In 
addition,  Liz  Marr  gave  us  useful  feedback  on  OpenEdu  and  we  thank  Paul  Bacsich  and 
Giles Pepler for replying so promptly to ad hoc queries. 

The OpenEdu project team is very grateful for the collaboration of the following experts 
for taking part in the online discussion and validation of the framework in the wikis: 

Access 
Dimension 

Content 
Dimension 

Pedagogy 
Dimension 

Recognition 
Dimension 

Collaboration 
Dimension 

Research 
Dimension 

Agnes 
Kukulska-
Hume 
The Open 
University, 
UK 

Alek 
Tarkowsky  
Centrum 
Cyfrowe, 
Poland  
António 
Moreira 
Teixeira 
Universidade 
Aberta 
Portugal  
Allison 
Littlejohn  
The Open 
University, 
UK 

Darco 
Jansen 
EADTU 
(European 
Association 
of Distance 
Teaching 
Universities) 
Igor Balaban 
University of 
Zagreb, 
Croatia 

Fredric Litto 
ABED- Brazilian 
Association for 
Distance Education, 
Brazil 

Igor Lesko 
Open Education 
Consortium (Global) 

Laura Czerniewicz 
University of Cape 
Town. South Africa  

Anne-Christin 
Tannhäuser 
ESCP Europe 
Wirtschaftshochschule 
Berlin, Germany 

Deborah Arnold 
University of 
Bourgogne, France 

Karolina 
Grodecka 
AGH 
University of 
Technology, 
Poland 

Lorna 
Campbell 
University of 
Edinburgh, 
UK 
Sandra 
Kucina 
University of 
Zagreb, 
Croatia 

Robert 
Schuwer 
Fontys 
University of 
Applied 
Sciences, 
Netherlands  
Mark Brown 
Dublin City 
University, 
Ireland 

Fabio 
Nascimbeni 
Universidade 
de La Rioja 
(UNIR), Spain  

Gabi Witthaus 
Loughborough 
University, UK 

Grainne 
Hamilton 
Digitalme, UK 

Willem van 
Valkenburg 
TU Delft, 
Netherlands 

Marci 
Powell 
Marci 
Powell & 
Associates, 
USA 
Ilona 
Bunchem 
Beuth 
University 
of Applied 
Sciences, 
Germany 

Robert 
Schuwer 
Fontys 
University 
of Applied 
Sciences, 
Netherlands  

Rory 
McGreal 
Athabasca 
University, 
Canada 

Fabio 
Nascimbeni 
Universidade 
de La Rioja 
(UNIR), Spain 

Marcelo Maina 
Universitat 
Oberta de 
Catalunya, 
(UOC) Spain  

Michael 
Gaebel 
European 
Universities 
Association 

Rolf 
Reinhardt 
Learning 
Agency 
Network, 
Germany 

Josep M. Duart 
Universitat Oberta de 
Catalunya, (UOC) 
Spain 

Neil Butcher 
Neil Butcher 
& Associates, 
South Africa 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jesus Moreno 
Programamos, 
Spain 

Martin 
Ebner 
Graz 
University 
of 
Technology, 
Austria 

Strategy 
Dimension 

Technology 
Dimension 

Quality 
Dimension 

Leadership 
Dimension 

Andy Lane 
The Open 
University, 
UK 
András 
Benedek 
Budapest 
University of 
Technology 
and 
Economics, 
Hungary 
Christian 
Stracke 
Open 
University of 
Netherlands 
(OUNL), 
Netherlands 
Carina 
Bossu 
Tasmanian 
Institute of 
Learning 
and 
Teaching, 
Australia 

Jim Devine 
Devine Consulting, 
Ireland 

Edmundo Tovar 
Universidad 
Politécnica de Madrid, 
Spain 

Paul Stacey 
Creative 
Commons, 
USA 
Javiera 
Atenas 
University 
College 
London, UK 

Ebba Ossiannilsson 
Swedish Association 
for Distance 
Education, Sweden 

Svetlana 
Knyazeva 
UNESCO IITE, 
Russia 

Fred Mulder 
Emeritus UNESCO / 
ICDE Chair  Open 
University of 
Netherlands (OUNL), 
Netherlands 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

The  report  ‘Opening  up  Education:  a  Support  Framework  for  Higher  Education 
Institutions’  is  the  final  outcome  of  the  OpenEdu  project  carried  out  by  IPTS  (2013-
2015) on behalf of DG Education and Culture. It presents a support framework for higher 
education institutions to open up education.  

In the OpenEdu project, open education is seen as a way of carrying out education, often 
using  digital  technologies.  Its  aim  is  to  widen  access  and  participation  to  everyone  by 
removing barriers and making learning accessible, abundant, and customisable for all. It 
offers  multiple  ways  of  teaching  and  learning,  building  and  sharing  knowledge.  It  also 
provides  a  variety  of  access  routes  to  formal  and  non-formal  education,  and  connects 
the two. 

Open  education  is  an  umbrella  term,  under  which  different  understandings  of  open 
education  can  be  accommodated.    In  Europe,  and  particularly  in  higher  education, 
opening  up  education  does  not  refer  specifically  to  the  opening  up  of  educational 
materials  under  an  open  license.  It  does  not  only  mean  the  availability  of  open  access 
research in repositories either, but these two can and should be included in the broader 
concept of open education.   

Open  education  is  becoming  ever  more  important  in  European  higher  education  due  to 
the  fact  that  digital  technologies  are  one  of  the  main  driving  forces  behind  education 
modernisation.  The  use  of  digital  technologies  for  teaching  and  learning  is  no  longer 
limited  to  open  universities  or  virtual  universities,  but  has  spread  through  all  types  of 
institutions, both the more traditional and the avant-garde.  

Through  open  education  each  and  every  individual,  at  every  stage  in  their  lives  and 
career  development,  can  have  appropriate  and  meaningful  educational  opportunities 
available  to  them.  These  include  access  to  content,  courses,  support,  assessment  and 
certification  in  ways  that  are  flexible,  and  accommodate  diverse  needs.  Barriers,  as 
regards for example entry or cost, are reduced or eliminated. 

Policy context  

The  report  supports  the  Communication  "Opening  up  Education:  Innovative  Teaching 
and Learning for All through New Technologies and Open Educational Resources1", which 
was  launched  by  the  European  Commission  in  September  2013.  The  Communication 
argues  for  a  change  in  the  framework  conditions  in  which  Higher  Education  (HE) 
institutions operate in Member States, to allow them to grasp the opportunities that ICT 
provides (p.4). It also advocates that "Europe should act now providing the right policy 
framework  and  a  stimulus  to  introduce  innovative  learning  and  teaching  practices  in 
schools,  universities,  vocational  education  and  training"  (p.3).  The  OpenEdu  framework 
for opening up education was designed to contribute to this objective.  It aims to provide 
institutions,  Member  States  (MS)  and  policy  makers  in  the  European  Union  with  a  tool 
that  helps  them  think  about  the  different  areas  in  which  open  education  can  incite 
change and innovation, and ensure that appropriate policies and practices are in place.  

The  OpenEdu  framework  also  contributes  to  the  2016  Communication  'A  New  Skills 
Agenda for Europe – Working Together to Strengthen Human Capital, Employability and 
Competitiveness'2,  in  which  it  is  observed  that  skills  acquisition  and  development  are 
essential for the performance and modernisation of labour markets. Lifelong learning via 
open  education  is  expected  to  be  a  route  for  enhancing  individuals'  employability.  In 
addition,  open  and  innovative  education  via  digital  technologies  is  one  of  the  six  new 
priorities areas for Education and Training 20203.     

1   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0654  
2    http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223&langId=en  
3   http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/2015/0901-et2020-new-priorities_en.htm 

5 

 
 
 
                                           
Opening  up  education  is  an  important  item  on  the  European  policy  agenda  for  many 
reasons.  First,  it  can  help  to  reduce  or  remove  barriers  to  education  (e.g.  cost, 
geography, time, entry requirements). This  gives learners the opportunity to up skill or 
re-skill at a lower  or nearly no cost, and in a flexible way  - important  considerations in 
the  economic  crisis  faced  by  Europe  today.  Second,  it  supports  the  modernisation  of 
higher education in Europe, since contemporary open education is largely carried out via 
digital technologies. Finally, it opens up the possibility of bridging non-formal and formal 
education.  This  can  take  place  if  HE  institutions  and  other  accredited  institutions 
recognised the credentials they each issue to learners.  

A  lot  still  needs  to  be  done  for  open  education  practices  to  become  a  strong  tool  for 
social and economic development. There needs to be a strategic opening up of education 
by higher education institutions if they are to address some of the social issues that are 
important  for  Europe  at  the  moment,  such  as  enhanced  workforce  skills,  access  to  job 
opportunities  and  personal  growth  of  citizens.  This  report  addresses  an  important 
question  raised  by  this  complex  scenario:  i.e.  how  can  higher  education  institutions 
engage  with  open  education  strategically  to  help  achieve  these  goals,  and  cater  at  the 
same time for their own institutional and local needs?  

The  report  is  mostly  aimed  at  university  management  and  decision  makers,  that  is, 
anyone who is in charge of open education or who can propose it as an important part of 
the  overall  institutional  strategy.  The  report  is  also  directed  at  those  staff  members  of 
HE institutions who actually design educational strategy. It offers a framework which can 
help them think through critical questions, such as: why is open education important and 
what is it exactly? What benefits can an open education strategy bring to an institution, 
to  students  (and  to  others  out  there),  to  a  region,  country  or  to  Europe  as  a  whole?  If 
one were to design an open education strategy for an institution, or better, re-design a 
current  university  strategy  to  embrace  open  education  and  become  a  more  open 
institution, what should one take into account? What are the main pillars of opening up 
education?  These  are  questions  often  asked  by  HE  institutions  across  Europe; 
particularly  the  many  which  are  not  yet  active  on  the  contemporary  open  education 
front4. Finally, this report is relevant for policy makers at European level since it can help 
them formulate policies to encourage institutions to open up education.  

The  framework  presented  in  this  report  was  based  on  the  results  from  four  studies 
designed  by  IPTS  on  open  education.  These  studies  included  intensive  desk  research, 
reviews  of  academic  and  grey  literature  (websites,  blogs,  newspapers,  reports),  and 
consultation and validation with experts (both in-house and online). The framework also 
underwent final validation by its target audience, i.e. the decision makers at universities 
across Europe.  

These  four  IPTS studies were carried  out to provide data  and information on the state-
of-the-art  of  open  education  in  Europe:  OpenCred5,  OpenCases6,  MOOCknowledge7 and 

4   The OpenSurvey study of the OpenEdu Project brings numbers on open education uptake in 5 

European countries.  
Castaño-Muñoz, J., Punie, Y., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mitic, M., Morais, R. (2016) How Are 
Higher Education Institutions Dealing with Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, and 
Strategies in Five European Countries. Luxembourg: Publications Offices of the European 
Union.  

5    Witthaus, G., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Childs, M., Tannhäuser, A., Conole, G., Nkuyubwatsi, 

B., Punie, Y. (2016) Validation of Non-formal MOOC-based Learning: An Analysis of 
Assessment and Recognition Practices in Europe (OpenCred). Luxembourg: Publications Offices 
of the European Union.  

6   Souto-Otero,  M.,  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  A.,  Shields,  R.,  Castaño-Muñoz,  J.,  Devaux,  A., 
Oberheidt,  S.,  Punie,  Y.  (2016)  OpenCases:  Case  Studies  on  Openness  in  Education. 
Luxembourg: Publications Offices of the European Union  

7    http://moocknowledge.eu/ 

6 

 
 
                                           
OpenSurvey 8 .  The  results  from  all  four  studies  point  to  the  need  to  focus  on  open 
education strategy, hence the  framework.  Since most universities in Europe involved in 
open education in one way or another are experimenting, sometimes in arbitrary and ad 
hoc ways, they do not have a strategy in place. Those that are not experimenting and do 
not  have  plans  to  do  so,  would  benefit  from  a  vision  of  how  open  education  can  help 
them  improve  their  educational  provision.  In  sum,  there  is  a  need  for  a  common 
understanding  of  open  education  in  Europe,  which  would  allow  higher  education 
institutions  to  make  it  a  powerful  tool  for  networked  practices,  learner  and  institutional 
development,  and  a  mechanism  for  social  change  by  providing  a  bridge  between  non-
formal and formal learning.  

Main findings  

The  OpenEdu  framework  for  higher  education  institutions  presents  10  dimensions  for 
opening  up  education.  Each  dimension  interrelates  with  all  the  others  and  allows  for 
different  degrees  of  openness.  It  is  a  holistic  view  of  open  education  which  includes 
different areas where universities can be more open. Institutional stakeholders, 43 open 
education experts from Europe and abroad, and university managers from 19 European 
Member  States  have  been  involved  in  different  phases  of  both  the  development  and 
evaluation of the framework. 

The  10  dimensions  of  the  framework  are  divided  into  two  categories:  core  dimensions 
and  transversal  dimensions.  There  are  6  core  dimensions  (access,  content,  pedagogy, 
recognition,  collaboration  and  research)  and  4  transversal  dimensions  (strategy, 
technology, quality and leadership). All dimensions are interrelated; the core dimensions 
are not more important than the transversal ones. Core dimensions represent the 'what' 
of open education and transversal dimensions indicate `how’ to achieve it.  

For example, open education is often thought of as relating to content (OER) or research 
(open  access).  The  framework  places  opening  up  education  beyond  these  two  aspects, 
and introduces both content and research as core dimensions ('what' is included), which 
are  supported  by  means  of  the  4  transversal  dimensions  (‘how’  it  is  provided).  For 
example, if a university were to decide to focus on the content and research dimensions 
for  the  institutional  opening  up  of  education,  they  could  use  a  repository  to  share 
content  and  research  (technology).  This  would  be  supported  by  a  strategy  to  widen 
access  to  learners  and  increase  the  institution's  reputation  and  reach  by  enhancing 
downloads  of  research  and  educational  material.  The  process  could  be  led  by  both  a 
bottom-up  and  top-down  approach  of  staff  engagement  (leadership)  and  would  seek  a 
high standard of education provision (quality). In this example, as previously indicated, 
the core dimensions also interact with one another, since content (courses) and research 
both have an intrinsic relationship to pedagogy and collaboration. 

8   Castaño-Muñoz, J., Punie, Y., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mitic, M., Morais, R. (2016) 

How Are Higher Education Institutions Dealing with Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, 
and Strategies in Five European Countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union 

7 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 1: The 10 dimensions of open education 

In each dimension of open education in the framework there are descriptors of possible 
practices and institutional policies9. Thus, by presenting the dimensions involved in open 
education,  the  framework  helps  to  provide  insight  and  inspiration  for  institutions  when 
they design how they will open up education. 

Those  involved  in  the  strategic  planning  of  higher  education  institutions  should 
contemplate: 

  Having  a  holistic  strategy  for  opening  up  education  that  encompasses  the  10 

dimensions of the OpenEdu framework, 

  Making the open education strategy part of the overall institutional strategy, 
  Promoting  intra,  inter  and  cross-border  collaboration  and  also  partnerships  to 

achieve open education goals, 

  Exploring new practices and welcoming changes, 
  Revising their practices at all levels to embrace openness: mission statement and 
vision,  current  organisational  management  structures  and  day-to-day  policies, 
and the institution's role in the community and globally. 

Related and future JRC work 

The  project  Policy  Recommendations  for  Opening  up  Education 10  follows-up  on  the 
framework to help higher education institutions open up education by presenting a set of 
policy  recommendations  for  Member  States  and  the  EU.  Opening  up  education  must 
involve various stakeholders simultaneously: education providers (institutions), teachers, 
researchers,  learners,  employers,  governments  and  EU  policy  makers.  Thus,  a 

9   The descriptors are presented in full in the annex I of this report. 
10   https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/open-education 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                           
comprehensive  approach  to  opening  up  educational  practices  and  opportunities  can  be 
put in place. 

Quick guide  

The  report introduces a rationale for open  education.  It presents the  dimensions of the 
opening up education framework and a summary of the descriptors in order to facilitate 
its use by a variety of stakeholders. This includes high-level decision makers, who will be 
involved in institutional policy support but not directly in (re-)designing the details of the 
strategies and activities.  

The Annex contains a strategic template in the format of a worksheet.  This is meant to 
be  used  by  universities  in  conjunction  with  the  full  framework,  to  help  them  plan 
opening-up education activities as part of their overall institutional strategies.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.   Introduction 

The report Opening up Education: a Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions 
is the final outcome  of  the OpenEdu Project  carried out by  IPTS (2013-2015) on behalf 
of  DG  Education  and  Culture.  It  presents  a  framework  that  can  help  higher  education 
institutions open up education.  

The  report  supports  the  Communication  "Opening  up  Education:  Innovative  Teaching 
and  Learning  for  All  through  New  Technologies  and  Open  Educational  Resources 11 ", 
which was launched by the European Commission in September 2013.  

Opening  up  education  is  important  in  the  European  policy  agenda  for  many  reasons. 
First,  it  allows  access  barriers  to  education  to  be  reduced  or  removed  (e.g.  cost, 
geography, time, and  entry requirements). This  can make it possible  for learners to up 
skill  or  re-skill  in  a  cheaper  and  flexible  way  -  an  important  consideration  in  the 
economic crisis faced by Europe today. Second, it helps to modernise higher education in 
Europe, since contemporary open education is mostly carried out via digital technologies. 
Finally,  it  can  bridge  non-formal  and  formal  education,  by  making  it  easier  for  HE 
institutions  and  other  accredited  institutions  to  recognise  certificates  of  learning 
achievement (to include badges) they each issue to learners.  

In order for this to happen, a common way to refer to the affordances of open education 
is  necessary.  This  would  open  up  educational  practices  in  a  collaborative  way  among 
European  universities,  and  therefore  serve  as  a  mechanism  for  non-formal  learning 
validation and recognition. It would also provide a ladder for learners to achieve new and 
improved career opportunities and personal growth. In addition, it would help to  bridge 
non-formal and formal learning.  

Open  education  is  an  umbrella  term  under  which  different  understandings  of  open 
education  can  be  accommodated.  In  Europe,  and  particularly  in  higher  education, 
opening up education does not refer exclusively to open educational resources or to the 
availability  of  open  access  research  in  repositories.  However,  these  two  aspects  of 
education can and should be included in the broader concept of open education.   

Within the OpenEdu study, open education is seen as: 

a  way  of  carrying  out  education,  often  using  digital  technologies.  Its  aim  is  to 
widen  access  and  participation  to  everyone  by  removing  barriers  and  making 
learning accessible, abundant, and customisable for all. It offers multiple ways of 
teaching and learning, building and sharing knowledge. It also provides a variety 
of access routes to formal and non-formal education, and connects the two. 

Through  open  education  each  and  every  individual,  at  every  stage  in  their  lives  and 
career  development,  can  have  appropriate  and  meaningful  educational  opportunities 
available  to  them.  These  include  access  to  content,  courses,  support,  assessment  and 
certification  in  ways  that  are  flexible  and  accommodate  diverse  needs.  Barriers,  for 
example those related to entry and cost, are reduced or eliminated. 

Opening  up  education is  important  for  universities  for  various  reasons.  Besides  being  a 
policy  priority,  it  works  as  a  catalyst  for  teaching  and  learning  innovation  via  digital 
technologies. There are advantages for open education in every dimension of openness, 
for  all  parties  involved.  Open  education  has  an  'ethos'  which  prompts  thinking  in  areas 
that  could  otherwise  be  neglected,  or  left  to  one  side  to  be  carried  out  on  specific 
occasions,  as  exceptions  rather  than  the  norm.  For  example,  in  terms  of  the  access 
dimension, institutions which embrace open education think further about supporting the 
adaptation  of  courses  to  special  needs  (e.g.  physically-challenged  learners).  They  can 
therefore widen their reach and increase the opportunities for participation in education. 

11   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0654  

10 

 
 
                                           
Open  education  also  has  advantages  in  terms  of  the  content  dimension.  Learners  can 
access course materials and knowledge with no need to request prior permission, at no 
cost (except  Internet connections), and are able to study  at the most convenient times 
for  them.  Universities  get  to  see  what  types  of  educational  materials  other  universities 
use  to  teach  similar  subjects.  They  can  also  see  the  pedagogy  supporting  the  teaching 
methods,  which  would  otherwise  be  restricted  to  formally  registered  learners,  either 
within  a  classroom  context  or  behind  the  password  of  a  private  virtual  learning 
environment.  Open  education  enables  universities  to  openly  collaborate,  and  exchange 
teaching materials or jointly produce them. This is because content provided as an OER 
lowers  barriers  for  reuse  and  adaption.  All  these  aspects  add  to  the  'openness'  of 
education, which allows it to attract new audiences.  Openness also allows new ways of 
teaching  and  learning  and  more  flexibility  in  terms  of  how  and  when  educational 
materials and teaching can be accessed. 

If  institutions  are  to  fully  embrace  opening  up  education,  they  should  align  their 
strategies with efforts to modernise higher education in Europe. These strategies should 
be open to new audiences and practices and, at the same time, enable institutions to be 
eligible for inter-institutional collaboration, both regionally and cross-border. At the heart 
of higher education provision is the mission to make university knowledge, practices and 
opportunities available to learners in both local and global communities in order to better 
educate  them  and  push  science  forward.  Open  education  lends  itself  to  this  mission 
because it has strong focus on the learners, both remote learners who are not formally 
registered in a higher institution and learners  who are  registered and attending classes 
on-campus or online.  

Designing an open education strategy for an institution, or better, re-designing a current 
university strategy to embrace open education and become a more open institution is an 
important  step  for  a  university  to  take  towards  modernisation.  Opening  up  education 
brings opportunities for all involved. 

1.1   The concept of openness in opening up education  

The  concept  of  'openness'  in  contemporary  open  education  is  constantly  evolving, 
assuming  different  meanings  in  different  contexts  and  discourses  (Inamorato  dos 
Santos,  Punie  and  Castaño-Muñoz,  2016).  Traditionally,  based  on  a  model  commonly 
adopted by open universities in the late 60's, ‘open’ means open entry, easier access to 
study.  This  view  of  openness,  termed  as  'classical'  by  Mulder  and  Janssen  (2013),  did 
not cover all  the aspects that openness covers today – free  of charge access, choice of 
start  times,  global  availability,  etc.  (McAndrew  2010).  Over  time,  the  concept  of 
openness has evolved to also mean open availability of content and resources, largely as 
a result of advances in the digital technologies used for educational purposes. The Cape 
Town Open  Education  Declaration (2007)  stresses  that open  education is not limited to 
"just  open  educational  resources.  It  also  draws  upon  open  technologies  that  facilitate 
collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices that empower 
educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. It may also grow to include 
new approaches to assessment, accreditation and collaborative learning".  

Openness  is  the  opposite  of  secrecy.  At  a  societal  level,  there  is  a  move  towards 
openness,  for  example  through  open  government,  where  public  records  are  open  to 
public scrutiny and individuals have access to information previously available to only a 
few  (UNESCO  policy  brief,  2014).  In  education,  openness  is  a  concept  that  advocates 
transparency  and  the  lowering  or  removal  of  barriers  at  all  levels  within  an  institution, 
including the processes involved in research, teaching and learning.   

However, openness does mean different things to different people (UNESCO policy brief 
2014). Defining 'openness' would be an ongoing task, since it is a flexible concept which 
embeds  a  number  of  different  'opennesses'.    Its  definition  is  therefore  contextual,  and 
due to its comprehensiveness, is an umbrella term. 'Opening' up education indicates the 
process  undertaken  by  educational  institutions  when  they  carry  out  open  education. 

11 

 
 
Mulder  and  Janssen  (2013)  argue  that  the  term  was  well  chosen  in  the  sense  that  it 
implies  movement  and  indicates  that  not  all  education  should  be  equally  open  in  every 
respect.  

The  working  definition  of  open  education  used  in  OpenEdu  is  broad  enough  to 
encompass  a  variety  of  practices  and  all  dimensions  of  open  education,  and  does  not 
restrict it to opening up content or data.  

12 

 
 
 
 
2.   Research design and methodology 

OpenEdu,  the  overarching  project  which  hosts  the  OpenEdu  framework,  used  a  multi-
method  approach  to  gathering  evidence  from  a  number  of  sources:  i.e.  desk  research 
(academic and grey literature), focus groups (face-to-face workshops with stakeholders) 
and asynchronous online focus groups with experts. The OpenEdu framework was based 
on  the  outcomes  of  this  multi-method  approach  to  data  collection  and  analysis,  which 
involved qualitative research methods (case studies, interviews, face-to-face and online 
discussions and desk research) and quantitative research methods (surveys).  

Two  workshops 12  (face-to-face  focus  groups)  were  held  during  the  project.  First,  a 
scoping  workshop  took  place  in  June  2014  at  the  IPTS  premises.  Then,  a  stakeholder 
validation workshop took place in November 2015, also at the IPTS. The first workshop 
ran  over  1.5  days  and  aimed  to  brainstorm  the  framework’s  dimensions  of  open 
education,  and  to  help  scope  the  part  of  the  framework  related  to  the  recognition  of 
learning  achievements.  Both  practitioners  and  champions  of  open  education,  as  well  as 
experts  in  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  (via  MOOCs  or  not)  were  invited. 
Participants were mostly academics and members of the Bologna process panel.  

The  second  workshop  (face-to-face  focus  group)  also  ran  over  1.5  days  and  aimed  to 
validate the full draft framework. The profile of participants was very specific: members 
of university management boards across Europe (rectors, vice-rectors, presidents, deans 
and  directors).  Eighteen  European  Member  States  were  represented  at  this  workshop. 
The  feedback  gathered  in  both  workshops  was  recorded  and  at  times  presented  to  the 
IPTS in writing by the participants.  

Prior  to  the  second  workshop,  there  was  an  online  validation  (online  focus  group)  with 
open  education  experts,  which  ran  from  September  -  November  2015.  The  full  draft 
framework  was  presented  to  the  experts  and  specific  feedback  on  definitions,  rationale 
and descriptors for each of the ten dimensions was requested. Participants were divided 
into  ten  groups,  which  worked  asynchronously  online  via  wikis  (one  per  dimension). 
Each  wiki  had  experts  in  the  specific  dimension  of  open  education  assigned  to  them. 
Participants provided feedback and engaged in discussions amongst themselves and with 
the OpenEdu team. 

This  online  exercise  was  highly  successful.  It  counted  on  43  participants 13 from  inside 
and outside the EU (e.g. from Canada, US, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, among other 
countries).  The  wikis  were  subsequently  opened  up  to  the  general  public  for  reading 
only 14 .  Overall,  the  framework  counted  on  input  from  over  90  individuals  (between 
experts,  policy  makers  and  HE  institutional  managers)  during  its  design  and  evaluation 
phases. 

2.1   Qualitative methods  

The  bulk  of  data  input  to  this  framework  comes  from  qualitative  data.  This  is  because 
the framework describes possible open education practices, and evidence from the field 
was  needed.  The  qualitative  methods  drawn  upon  were  desk  research,  case  studies, 
interviews, focus groups (workshops) and asynchronous online focus groups.  

12   Workshop is a typical word used in the IPTS in research for policy-making. It refers to an event 
of which the main goal is an in-depth discussion of a topic or the research results of a project. 
It normally takes the format of a focus group with participants divided into groups.  There are 
also plenary discussions.  

13   The participants’ names are mentioned in the acknowledgements section of the report. 
14   The URLs to the wikis can be found at the references section of this report. 

13 

 
 
                                           
2.1.1  Case studies, interviews and desk research in OpenEdu  

OpenCases15 is  a  study  on  opening  up  the  education  practices  of  nine  institutions  in 
Europe which offer open education via MOOCs, OER or a combination of these and other 
open  practices.  OpenCases  ran  during  2015  as  part  of  the  OpenEdu  project.  The  study 
aimed  to  incorporate  examples  of  openness  in  teaching,  research  and  strategy.  In 
particular, it aimed to explore how and why higher education institutions, networks and 
government-led initiatives are dealing with openness in higher education. These kinds of 
questions  can  be  addressed  well  through  in-depth  case  studies.  Moreover,  the  study 
aimed  to  provide  a  comprehensive  view  of  how  individual  institutions,  networks  and 
initiatives  approach  openness,  rather  than  –for  example-  provide  a  mapping  of  the 
situation regarding different components of openness across the higher education sector. 
Again, this aim is well aligned with the case-study research method.  

The  main  data  collection  method  for  the  case  studies  was  semi-structured  interviews, 
followed  by  desk  research.  The  cases  were  chosen  for  their  thematic  relevance  to 
OpenEdu: there are cases of well-consolidated open education initiatives, a case from a 
national  perspective,  cases  from  institutions  which  have  maturing  and  evolving  open 
education  initiatives,  a  case  from  a  consortium  of  universities  and  a  case  from  a 
commercial enterprise.  The cases are:  ETH Zurich, France Université Numeriqué (FUN), 
OERu,  TUDelft,  Universidad  Carlos  III  de  Madrid,  AGH,  Virtual  University  of  Bavaria 
(BVU), OpenupEd and ALISON.  

These cases were chosen from fifty mini cases on openness identified via extensive desk 
research  into  higher  education  across  Europe.  From  these  fifty  cases  (published  as  a 
sub-product  of  OpenCases  in  catalogue  format),  eight  cases  were  chosen  for  their 
approximation to the aforementioned criteria and one was chosen outside of this pool of 
cases.  It  corresponds  to  the  private,  non-academic  educational  sector  (it  is  not  a 
university).  This number of cases enabled the research team to engage in the analysis 
of  each  of  them  within  the  time-frame  requirements  for  data  collection  and  analysis. 
Interviewees  were  often  senior  members  of  staff  or  staff  with  a  direct  role  in  open 
education at the institutions. 

OpenCred16   is  a  study  on  credentialisation  and  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  via 
MOOCs.  OpenCred  was  carried  out  between  June  2014  and  November  2015  as  part  of 
the  OpenEdu  project.  It  was  based  on  desk  research  and  in-depth  interviews,  out  of 
which  case  studies  were  produced.  The  goal  was  to  allow  us  to  better  understand  the 
main  issues  that  (open)  learners,  HE  institutions  and  employers  face  in  the 
credentialisation  and  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  (which  is  also  referred  to  as 
open learning in the OpenCred study).  

The triangulation method used for choosing the profile of research participants was done 
so that a variety of perspectives on recognition from different stakeholder groups could 
be brought to the fore. The study began with extensive desk research in all twenty-eight 
European Member States in order to identify cases where institutions offer formal credits 
for open learning and (open) learners have taken advantage of and/or attempted  to get 
recognition  for  these  credentials  by  employers.  Not  much  was  evident  via  the  desk 
research, particularly in relation to recognition attempts by learners. As the study went 
by, it was necessary to discard around eight Member States from the study because little 
or no information was found on their open education offer and/or on recognition of open 
learning  via  open  education.  However,  the  OpenCred  report  does  include  examples  of 
open education practices from the remaining twenty Member States. 

15   Souto-Otero,  M.;  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  A.;  Shields,  R.;  Lazetic,  P.;  Castaño  Muñoz,  J.; 
Devaux,  A.;  Oberheidt,  S.;  Punie,  Y.  (2016)  'OpenCases:  Case  Studies  on  Openness  in 
Education'. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27937 EN.  

16   Witthaus, G., Inamorato dos Santos. A., Childs, M., Tannhäuser, A., Conole, G., Nkuyubwatsi, 
B.,  Punie,  Y.  (2016)  Validation  of  Non-formal  MOOC-based  Learning:  An  Analysis  of 
Assessment  and  Recognition  Practices  in  Europe  (OpenCred).  JRC  IPTS  Science  for  Policy 
Report, EUR 27660 EN    

14 

 
 
                                           
By  design,  OpenCred  carried  out  six  in-depth,  semi-structured  interviews.  The 
interviewees were two academics from higher education institutions, two MOOC learners 
and two staff members of  employer bodies.  There  were two interviews for  each  of the 
aforementioned  profiles.  The  interviews  were  transcribed  and  summarised  and  three 
case studies were composed from the information collected. 

2.2   Quantitative methods  

MOOCKnowledge  is  an  ongoing  study  of  MOOC  learners  from  European  MOOC 
providers, which started in November 2013. It consists of a series of surveys in different 
time  periods  (pre-course  and  post-course,  and  a  follow  up  questionnaire  at  least  one 
year  after  the  finalisation  of  a  MOOC).  The  MOOCKnowledge  study  was  conducted  in 
collaboration  with  a  network  of  three  universities  (OUNL,  UPM  and  UOC)  and  a  private 
organisation (PAU Education). 

The research instrument was designed to provide comparable cross-provider and cross-
country  data  at  EU  level  on  the  demographic  and  socio-economic  characteristics  of 
European  MOOCs  students;  their  motivations  for  and  attitudes  to  taking  a  MOOC;  their 
perceptions of the learning experience; the behaviour-intention gap (alternative drop out 
measurement);  and  the  impact  of  MOOCs  on  professional  and/or  academic  career  and 
personal  life.  The  study  addressed  directly  the  under-representation  of  learners  in 
current  MOOC  research  by  establishing  a  large-scale  cross-provider  data  collection  on 
European MOOC participants (Kalz et al, 2015). 

OpenSurvey17 was  a  representative  survey  of  higher  education  institutions  in  five  EU 
Member  States  (France,  Germany  Spain,  Poland  and  the  UK)  carried  out  by  IPTS  in 
collaboration  with  the  Academic  Cooperation  Association  (ACA).  It  took  place  between 
November 2014 and July 2015. The survey’s objective was to show if, how and to what 
extent, higher education institutions in these five countries engage in Open Education  - 
and  if  not,  why  not.  178  Higher  Education  institutions  (HEIs)  from  these  five  EU 
countries  responded  to  the  survey,  the  main  outcome  of  which  was  an  overview  and 
analysis of the current institutional engagement with MOOCs, OER and other dimensions 
of openness. The survey team took appropriate measures to avoid selection bias and the 
overrepresentation of open education early-adopter institutions, therefore its data can be 
used to describe how the bulk of higher education institutions are dealing with openness.  

The OpenSurvey’s representativeness, and the fact that it includes novel topics such as 
collaboration  or  open  science,  distinguishes  it  from  other  existing  surveys  on  open 
education topics.  

17   Castaño-Munoz, J.; Punie, Y., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mitic, M. and Morais, M. (2016) How 
Are  Higher  Education  Institutions  Dealing  with  Openness?  A  Survey  Of  Practices,  Beliefs  and 
Strategies in Five European Countries, JRC IPTS Science for Policy Report, EUR 27750 EN. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                           
3.   Supporting findings to the framework from the OpenEdu 

studies 

Findings from the four OpenEdu studies, briefly presented in this report, provided input 
to  the  framework  design.  Collectively,  these  studies  offer  a  big  picture  of  the  current 
open education practices of HE institutions in Europe (both the ones that work well and 
the ones which do not) and food for thought in terms of what is desirable. Interestingly, 
the  findings  of  the  four  OpenEdu  studies  were  in  agreement,  which  suggests  that  the 
multi-method approach and triangulation of data collection was an appropriate technique 
to verify the research results. 

All  the  findings  were  taken  into  account  when  designing  the  framework  and  served  as 
the  main  input  into  the  development  of  the  descriptors  contained  in  each  dimension  of 
open education. More specifically:  

The  OpenCases  study  produced  findings  in  a  number  of  different  areas  of  open 
education  provision.  The  most  important  was  the  public  mission  of  higher  education 
institutions (HEIs) and their enhancement.  

The  case  studies  revealed  that  currently  there  is  a  risk  that  the  enhancement  of 
institutions  –particularly  as  regards  their  reputations  and  the  quality  of  learning  for 
traditional  students-  will  become  the  overriding  theme  in  discussions  about  open 
education  initiatives  such  as  MOOCs  (Souto-Otero,  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  Shields, 
Lažetić, Castaño-Munoz, Devaux, Oberheidt and Punie, 2016).   

This finding contributed to  increased  emphasis being placed in  the OpenEdu  framework 
on going 'beyond MOOCs' and also beyond open educational resources. The opening up 
education  process  needs  to  be  a  constant  and  ever  evolving  effort  towards  openness, 
which  consists  of  a  number  of  simultaneous  actions  and  strategies  on  different  fronts, 
such  as  the  ones  proposed  in  the  framework  for  each  of  the  dimensions  of  open 
education.  

The  OpenCases  study  also  identified  four  conditions  that  enable  institutions  to  become 
involved  in  open  education,  presented  below  (Souto-Otero,  Inamorato  dos  Santos, 
Shields, Lažetić, Castaño-Munoz, Devaux, Oberheidt and Punie, 2016): 

Academic staff 
motivation 

Contextual 
changes 

Pool of available 
knowledge and 
expertise 

Leadership  

vision or "buy in" 

Figure 2: Enabling conditions for involvement in open higher education  
(OpenCases, 2016) 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Academic  staff  motivation  was  crucial,  given  that  several  institutions  reported  that 
involvement in open education is (a) voluntary and (b) rewarded only to a limited extent 
in career promotion procedures, which tend to prioritise research performance. In one of 
the case studies (FUN), the reluctance of academic staff to get involved reportedly made 
it difficult to push the opening up of the institution forward.  

This  shows  that  leadership  is  essential,  supported  by  awareness-raising  actions.  In  the 
framework, leadership is dealt with both top-down and bottom-up, in order to make sure 
that both staff and learners play a leading role in the design of institutional strategies for 
opening up education. 

The pool of available knowledge in the institution (both technological and pedagogical): 
HEIs  that  had  long-standing  experience  in  the  use  of  electronic  learning  management 
systems  stated  that  this  facilitated  the  transition  to  open  education  initiatives.  The 
existence  of  specific  staff  with  expertise  in  open  education  helped  to  convince 
management and colleagues of its advantages, and also helped them to adopt it.  

However, many traditional institutions do not feel they are equipped with the necessary 
know how in open education that would allow them to  come up with valuable provision 
and make wise decisions.  One  of the main goals of the framework is  to cover precisely 
this gap. 

Leadership  vision  or  'buy  in'  can  drive  open  education  initiatives.  Leadership  makes  it 
possible  to  identify  priorities  and  allocate  resources  to  support  open  education  –either 
directly or through teaching and learning or innovation funds for projects, the creation of 
support  structures,  etc.  Leadership  commitment  may  be  affected  by  internal  trends 
(such  as  the  desire  to  innovate  in  teaching  and  learning)  or  contextual  changes,  as 
discussed below. 

Contextual  changes  include  the  influence  of  global  trends  towards  greater  use  of  open 
teaching and research and the Bologna process. It was reported that this process led to 
the need to adapt educational materials, which some institutions linked to making those 
materials  suitable  for  inclusion  in  open  courseware  repositories.  Regarding  open 
research,  the  importance  of  national  initiatives  such  as  the  REF  (Research  Excellence 
Framework)  in  the  UK,  which  established  incentives  –and  more  recently  requirements- 
for the use of open research repositories, was highlighted. Two other contextual changes 
have  enabled  participation  in  open  education:  the  availability  of  new  technological 
solutions  –such  as  new  types  of  learning  platforms  and  repositories-  and  the 
expectations of an increasingly digitally-literate population. 

Discussions on enabling factors usually refer to factors that are endogenous to HEIs. This 
suggests  that  HEIs  believe  that  internal  dynamics  are  the  key  factor  for  involvement/ 
non-involvement in open education. 

The  OpenSurvey  study  of  the  OpenEdu  project  also  elicited  similar  results  to 
OpenCases. OpenSurvey showed that open education is being practiced by 39.4% of the 
institutions  in  the  five  countries  surveyed,  either  in  the  form  of  MOOCs,  OER  or  open 
online  courses,  which  means  that  more  than  half  the  institutions  did  not  practice  open 
education. Though the benefits of offering open education are recognised by many HEIs, 
open  education  is  far  from  being  fully  mainstream  in  higher  education.  In  order  to 
spread  and  promote  open  education  further,  three  groups  of  recommendations  were 
derived  from  the  survey  data:  i)  integrate  open  education  into  HEIs’  overall  strategies, 
ii) increase  awareness  and  understanding  of  open  education  within  HE  institutions,  and 
iii)  change  existing  practices  and  mechanisms  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  open 
education. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

39.4% 

41.6% 

43% 

43.4% 

21.8% 

63% 

OVERALL

France

Germany

Poland

Spain

UK

Figure 3: Open Education Provision (source: OpenSurvey Report, 2016) 

The survey also revealed that many institutions are not clear on what open education is 
and  how  it  can  be  practiced  beyond  OER  and  MOOCs.  As  previously  argued,  open 
education  is  understood  differently  by  different  stakeholders.  This  means  that  though 
open  education  has  become  fashionable  it  is  still  often  unclear  how  it  can  be  put  into 
practice.  This  lack  of  clarity  prevents  universities  from  thinking  about  open  education 
with  purpose  and  strategy.  A  common  understanding  about  open  education,  however, 
would enable them to collaborate and share experiences.  

The  figure  below  shows  that  few  connections  were  found  between  open  education  and 
the universities' mission statements: 

78.8% 

64.1% 

68.4% 

81.1% 

65.3% 

32.2% 

60.1% 

39.9% 

100

80

60

40

20

0

2.5% 

0% 

0% 

7.9% 

5.2% 

21.2% 

28% 

26.4% 

18.9% 

0% 

OVERALL

France

Germany

Poland

Spain

UK

Yes, policy or mission statement in support of Open Education

No, no policy or mission statement is available on Open Education

Yes, policy or mission statement expressing reservations concerning Open Education

Figure 4: Open Education existence in universities' mission statements 
(source: OpenSurvey Report, 2016) 

Other  OpenSurvey  study  results  (Castaño-Munoz,  Punie,  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  Mitic 
and Morais, 2016, p. 5) point to the following: 

o  One fifth of the surveyed HEIs stated that they offer at least one MOOC. In addition, 
about a quarter of the HEIs that are not offering MOOCs at the moment intend to do 
so  in  the  future.  However,  this  situation  varies  among  countries,  ranging  from 
France, where both the current MOOCs offer and the intentions to offer MOOCs in the 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
future are high, to others like Germany where both current and planned MOOC offers 
are low; 

o  More  than  50%  of  HEIs  support  the  use  of  OER  within  their institution.  In  contrast, 
only just over one third of HEIs support the development (and offer) of OER. Most of 
those HEIs that use OERs do so to supplement classical face-to-face instruction and 
do not substitute core learning materials for OER;  

o  The  main  reasons  for  HEIs  not  to  engage  in  open  education  practices  are  that 
academic staff is not skilled to use open education and also the difficulties associated 
with  formal  recognition  of  open  education.  Pedagogical  issues  are  reported  as  less 
important challenges; 

o  Promotion and visibility of the institution and also reaching more students are the 

strongest drivers for HEIs to engage with open education. Enhancing the quality of 
education is also an important motivation. Institutions are less convinced about the 
financial benefits as a major driver for engaging in open education; 

o  Finally, in all 5 countries studied, HEIs usually lack recognition mechanisms; even in 
cases where MOOC certificates are based on reliable ways of assessment and linked 
to a specific number of ECTS. This indicates there is little awareness and/or trust in 
providing recognition of learning through MOOCs.  

The OpenEdu framework provides a working definition of open education to help higher 
education  institutions  to  perceive  it  in  a  more  holistic  way,  and  think  about  how  to 
approach  it  in  their  strategy.  Most  importantly,  it  also  presents  a  discussion  of  the 
different dimensions in which universities can 'open up education'. 

The  MOOCknowledge  study provided results for the first phase of the data collection, 
which  was  a  pilot  of  six  MOOCs.  It  showed  that  while  MOOCs  are  open  in  terms  of 
access, not all learners  are equally likely to participate or succeed. Taking a MOOC and 
succeeding  in  it  depends  on  several  factors,  such  as  outcome  beliefs,  socioeconomic 
status, educational background and digital skills.  

In  terms  of  learner  profile,  the  pilot  study  showed  that  MOOC  learners  are  mainly 
educated,  working-age  individuals,  although  there  are  some  learners  who  are  either 
unemployed  or  on  low  wages.  It  seems  also  that  unemployed  and  low  income  people 
have  higher  expectations  of  the  impact  of  learning  through  MOOCs  for  improving  their 
socio-economic situation, hence their intention to  enrol in (more) MOOCs in the future. 
Overall, for the pilot, MOOC learners tend to have more previous experience with lifelong 
learning  (including  MOOCs)  and  also  have  a  relatively  high  level  of  digital  skills.  The 
majority  of  MOOC  learners  intend  to  complete  the  full  MOOC,  but  there  are  also  many 
who focus only on the parts that specifically interest them. The quality of the content of 
the  MOOCs  is  considered  high,  but  there  is  less  interaction  between  learners  and  with 
tutors than learners expected before starting the course. 

The OpenEdu framework draws attention to the role of learners and the community with 
regards to opening up education. The collaboration, access and leadership dimensions of 
the  framework,  for  example,  suggest  ways  in  which  learners  can  play  a  central  role  in 
the opening up process. They can produce and share content, propose and lead on ways 
in which opening up education can take place locally, within a community. 

The  OpenCred  study  explored  recognition  of  MOOC-based  learning.  The  study 
proposed that recognition involves two separate processes – firstly, credentialisation of a 
learner’s  learning  outcomes  or  achievements,  and  secondly,  recognition,  sometimes  by 
the same institution that awarded the credentials, but often  by a different institution or 
an  employer.  OpenCred  used  the  terms  credentialisation  and  recognition  to  refer  to 
these two separate processes. The table below clarifies this distinction: 

19 

 
 
 
Table 1: Credentialisation versus Recognition of Learning Outcomes18 

Learning outcomes (LOs) 
are formally 
acknowledged 

  … by an educational provider 

through the act of issuing a 
credential to the learner, usually 
on the basis of completed 
assessment. 

  … by an educational institution 
(which has or has not provided 
the learning offer) or employer 
formally granting the learner the 
right to access or progress in 
educational or employment 
activities 

Credentialisation of 
Learning Outcomes 

Recognition of  
Learning Outcomes 

In  the  context  of  higher  education,  the  study  proposed  that  the  aims  of  recognition  of 
non-formal learning – whether open or not - are:  

  Access:  through  recognition  of  non-formal  open  learning,  individuals  can  gain 

access to programmes offered by educational institutions.   

  Progression:  registered  students  can  be  exempted  from  part  of  a  programme  in 

order to be fast-tracked through their studies. 

  The award of a full HE qualification. 

One  of  the  main  outcomes  of  the  OpenCred  study  was  the  open  learning  recognition 
traffic  light  model.  The  model  describes  elements  of  non-formal,  open  learning 
assessment, using a traffic light metaphor: 

Figure 5: OpenCred Recognition Traffic Light Model19 

18   Source:  Witthaus,  G.  Inamorato  dos  Santos,  A.,  Childs,  M.  Tannhäuser,  A.  Conole,  G. 
Nkuyubwatsi,  B.  Punie, Y.  (2016)  Validation of non-formal MOOC-based learning:  an analysis 
of Assessment and  Recognition Practices in Europe, JRC  IPTS Science  for Policy  Report,    EUR 
27660: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC96968/lfna27660enn.pdf 

19   Ibid. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The  recognition  dimension  of  the  OpenEdu  framework  proposes  that  universities  have 
clear  policies  on  recognition  of  open  learning.  It  provides  the  traffic  light  model  as  a 
visual tool, which can be displayed on MOOCs and open learning courses, with a view to 
helping  both  learners  and  universities/employers.  Students  would  benefit  from  upfront 
information on what to expect from the course they aim to take, e.g. whether or not the 
course  provides  ECTS  credits  and  how  assessment  takes  place.  Universities  and 
employers would benefit from it for recognition purposes. Looking at the traffic light for a 
specific course can make it easier to assess whether the course has the level of formality 
expected  for  recognition  purposes  or  not,  and  whether  it  fits  institutional  policies  on 
recognition of non-formal learning. The traffic light model aims to inform the learner and 
to speed up the recognition process by promoting transparency. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.   A  support  framework  for  promoting  openness  in  higher 

education institutions 

"No framework provides definitive answers. The answers come from the insights 
generated by the process of interacting with the framework". 
(Eades et al, 2010) 

Why  is  a  framework  for  opening  up  education  important?  Because  it  guides  those 
involved  in  the  strategic  planning  of  HEIs  in  thinking  through  critical  questions  and 
common practices. Without a framework, they can overlook important considerations or 
put great effort into practices that may need little  more investment.  The trick is to use 
the framework without getting trapped in it and approach it as a supporting tool for the 
development of strategies.  

The  OpenEdu  framework  is  proposed  as  a  foundation  for  developing  insights  and 
inspiring  visions.  It  can  also  be  used  as  a  tool  for  developing  a  position  on  open 
education, by adapting the frameworks' propositions whenever needed. It was designed 
to  help  higher  education  institutions  in  Europe  to  make  strategic  decisions  on  open 
education. By defining open education and both its core and transversal dimensions, the 
framework promotes transparency in practices and proposes a common understanding of 
open education. 

Open education is often understood as open educational resources (OER) and at times as 
open  research  data.  The  framework,  however,  seeks  to  promote  a  more  holistic 
approach to open education. It proposes that contemporary open education goes beyond 
OER  and  open  research  outputs  to  embrace  strategic  decisions,  teaching  methods, 
collaborations  between  individuals  and  institutions,  recognition  of  open  learning  and 
different  ways  of  making  content  available.  Contemporary  open  education  is  mostly 
enabled by ICTs and hence, there is endless potential for innovation and reach. 

The  framework  was  based  on  the  results  from  previous  and  current,  designed-for-
purpose IPTS research on open education. This included intensive desk research, reviews 
of academic and grey literature (websites, blogs, newspapers, reports), and consultation 
and  validation  with  experts  (both  in-house  and  online).  The  framework  also  underwent 
final validation by its target audience, who are the decision makers at universities across 
Europe.  

Its main characteristic is that it shows the dynamism of open education and that there is 
no  single  correct  way  of  doing  it.  Rather,  open  education  can  involve  focusing  on 
openness  in  specific  dimensions  of  the  framework  such  as  content  and  technology,  or 
more comprehensively, by targeting as much openness as possible in all the dimensions. 
Whether  the  first  or  the  second  option  is  chosen,  open  education  remains  bound  by  all 
the  dimensions,  which  will  always  interact  with  one  another,  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
extent.  

The OpenEdu framework focuses on open education as a tool to modernise education via 
technologies and new teaching and learning practices. At the same time, it aims to lower 
the  barriers  to  education  at  many  different  levels  (e.g.  access,  cost,  technology, 
pedagogy).  Another  framework  that  focuses  on  higher  education  institutions  and 
complements  the  OpenEdu  framework  is  HEInnovate20,  which  is  a  self-assessment  tool 
to  help  universities  become  more  entrepreneurial.  It  fits  well  with  the  OpenEdu 
framework  in  terms  of  its  emphasis  on  collaboration,  leadership  and  organisational 
capacity  (the  role  of  people).  The  OpenEdu  framework  can  also  work  as  a  self-
assessment  tool  on  openness  but  it  does  not  offer  any  particular  benchmark  or 
measurement against which the universities could score or rank themselves. Instead, it 
offers a number of descriptors that can lead a university to be more or less open in each 
of  the  dimensions,  according  to  their  own  strategic  decisions,  and  provides  more  detail 

20   https://heinnovate.eu/about 

22 

 
 
                                           
than HEInnovate in terms of course content and delivery. The framework was designed 
this  way  because,  at  the  core  of  open  education,  there  are  a  number  of  different 
understandings  of  what  it  means  to  be  an  open  institution.  There  is  no  right  or  wrong 
answer,  just  practices  that  can  enable  openness  in  a  more  or  less  holistic  way.  Hence, 
the  OpenEdu  framework  works  best  as  a  tool  to  stimulate  ideas  on  how  to  open  up 
education. An ultimate goal for openness is something that the institutions should set for 
themselves. 

4.1   How to use the framework 

For each dimension, the framework presents a definition of the dimension, a rationale for 
it, its main components and its descriptors. These descriptors show detailed actions that 
can be performed by HE institutions to achieve or maintain the level of openness desired 
in each dimension. The framework can be used differently depending on the stakeholder. 
It  is  designed  to  be  used  in  a  dynamic  and  flexible  way,  as  it  invites  education 
institutions  to  mix  and  match  the  dimensions  according  to  their  specific  requirements 
and  strategic  plan.    For  example,  the  framework  may  be  used  by  an  executive  HE 
manager,  who  will  probably  propose,  approve  and  support  policies  but  not  necessarily 
engage in the detailed design of the activities involved in it. In this case, focusing on the 
dimensions’  definitions  and  their  rationale  will  be  enough  to  get  a  flavour  of  the 
comprehensiveness of the concept of open education proposed. Some guiding questions 
might be: 

  Does  my  institution  have  an  overall  strategy  for  education  or  mission  statement 

that fully embraces opening up? 

 

 

If  not,  why  and  how  could  it  be  done?  What  would  be  the  challenges  and 
benefits? 

If my institution does have an overall strategy/mission statement, how aligned is 
it with an open education ethos?  

  Which  dimensions  of  the  framework  are  currently  most  prominent  in  the 

institution? To which other dimensions could we pay further attention? 

  Who  in  the  institution  is  playing/could  play  a  leading  role  in  helping  us  achieve 

our goals? How could they be supported? 

  How  does  opening  up  education  enable  my  institution  to  have  a  positive  local 

impact in the community, and if possible, globally?  

  Who in the community/region could benefit from the opening up of the practices 

of our university? 

  Who are our main collaborators and stakeholders?  

  What role do students and community leaders play in this process of opening up 

education? 

However,  the  framework  can  be  used  in  much  more  detail  by  anyone  in  charge  of 
thinking  deeply  about  openness  as  a  strategy:  i.e.  managers,  lecturers,  researchers, 
strategists  and  community  stakeholders.  In  these  cases,  besides  the  questions  above, 
further questions can be asked regarding each of the dimensions. An optional opening up 
education planning template, in the format of a worksheet, is presented in  ANNEX II to 
be used alongside this framework. It presents questions and a guide for stakeholders on 
things to consider when using the framework. 

4.2   The OpenEdu Framework 

The  OpenEdu  framework  is  presented  in  full  in  ANNEX  I.  It  consists  of  10  dimensions 
which  are  presented  as  a  set  of  documents  containing  the  definitions,  rationale, 
components  and  descriptors  of  each  dimension.  It  is  followed  by  ANNEX  II,  which  is  a 
worksheet to help universities use the framework by eliciting useful questions.  

23 

 
 
 
5.   The 10 dimensions of open education 

The term ‘dimensions’ was chosen to indicate ‘aspects or features of a situation'. In this 
case,  the  situation  consists  of  the  various  ways  in  which  open  education  is  practised  in 
educational  institutions.  The  dimensions  consist  of  different  courses  of  action,  focusing 
on a given area, which interact and together shape the practices of open education.   

The  core  dimensions  of  open  education  are  most  commonly  found  in  the  practices 
around  open  education.  They  provide  the  'what'  of  opening  up  education:  i.e.  access, 
content,  pedagogy,  recognition,  collaboration  and  research.  These  core  dimensions, 
though  they  are  not  always  treated  as  such,  appear  as  domains  of  open  education  in 
different  institutional  contexts  where  open  education  is  being  practised.  For  example, 
they can be found in the work of Uvalić-Trumbić and Daniels (2014), Weller (2014), Ros 
et  al  (2014),  Murphy  (2013),  Mulder  &  Janssen  (2013),  Wiley  &  Hilton  (2009),  among 
many  others.  These  dimensions  embody  the  most  common  practices  and  perceptions 
associated with open education in higher education settings.  

The transversal dimensions of open education provide the backbone for the realisation of 
the  core  dimensions  -  the  'how'  of  opening  up  educational  practices.  They  constantly 
interact  with  the  core  dimensions  and  with  one  another.  These  dimensions  are 
leadership,  strategy,  quality  and  technology.    Together,  they  enable  open  education 
practices to be shaped in different ways in HE institutions. 

Figure 6: The 10 Dimensions of Open Education 

The next section provides an introduction to the dimensions, which are further discussed 
alongside their components and descriptors in the full framework, which is presented in 
ANNEX I. All definitions are contextual to opening up education. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
5.1   The core dimensions  

The core dimensions provide the 'what' of opening up education. For example, what does 
it mean when it is said that a university is opening up education? The 'what' in opening 
up needs explaining, e.g. is the university opening up its registration process by allowing 
anyone to study irrespectively of having previous certification? Or could the university be 
opening  up  its  content  instead?  Or  even  opening  up  pedagogical  practices  to  include 
ideas from lecturers of other institutions or countries?  

5.1.1  Access 

Access  in  open  education  is  the  removal  or  lowering  of  economic,  technological, 
geographical and institutional barriers which obstruct the doorway to knowledge. 
It  grants  permission  to  learners  to  engage  with  educational  content,  courses, 
programmes,  communities  of  practice,  networks  and  other  types  of  knowledge 
sharing environments, media and activities in formal and non-formal education. It 
is  also  about  enabling  informal  and  independent  learners  to  seek  and  get 
recognition of their learning.   

Expanding  access  to  information  and  knowledge  is  a  core  value  of  openness  and  a  key 
enabler of formal and non-formal education. Consequently, it is one of the main goals of 
open  education.  In  practice,  from  an  educational  institution’s  perspective,  this  broad 
conception  of  access  can  be  promoted  at  three  interrelated  levels:  access  to 
programmes, access to courses, access to educational content (free of charge content or 
OER),  and  access  to  their  related  communities  of  practices  and  networks.  This  is 
inclusive of all applicable educational services offered by the institution, as well as access 
to teachers and other learners. 

5.1.2  Content 

Content  in  open  education  refers  to  materials  for  teaching  and  learning,  and 
research outputs, which are free of charge and available to all. 

Content  in  open  education  encompasses  texts  of  all  sorts,  textbooks,  course  materials, 
pictures, games, podcasts, video-lectures, software, data, research papers and outputs, 
and any other type of educational material that conveys information and can be used for 
teaching and learning. It can be open licensed, in the public domain or copyrighted but 
still 'gratis' and accessible by everyone without restrictions.   It consists of two types of 
content: open educational resources (OER) and free of charge content. 

An OER is content that  is ‘libre’ (openly-licensed content)  and at the same time  ‘gratis’ 
(free  of  charge).  There  are  different  types  of  OER  (e.g.  fully  licensed  or  licensed  with 
restrictions). Content in the public domain is also in this category. One of the benefits of 
using  an  OER  for  teaching  and  learning  is  that  it  reduces  the  possibilities  of  users 
infringing  copyright.  At  the  same  time,  it  grants  greater  permissions  in  the  use  of 
content,  such  as  adaptation,  translation,  remix,  reuse  and  redistribution,  depending  on 
the  type  of  license  applied  to  the  content.  OER  can  have  different  granularity,  varying 
from  a  learning  object  (e.g.  a  picture  with  a  specific  teaching  purpose)  to  a  full  course 
(e.g. a MOOC or an open - libre and gratis - online course). 

Free-of-charge  content  refers  to  content  that  is  ‘gratis’  but  remains  copyrighted.  The 
user  does  not  pay  to  access  it,  but  at  the  same  time  cannot  reuse,  adapt,  or  share  it 
without seeking permission  from the copyright holder. Free-of-charge content can have 
different granularity, varying from a learning object to a full course (e.g. a MOOC or an 
open  (gratis)  online  course).  It  should,  whenever  appropriate,  be  fully  licensed  to 
become an OER, which would give the user more permissions in handling the content. 

25 

 
 
 
 
5.1.3  Pedagogy 

Openness  in  pedagogy  refers  to  the  use  of  technologies  to  broaden  pedagogical 
approaches  and  make  the  range  of  teaching  and  learning  practices  more 
transparent, sharable and visible. 

Opening  up  pedagogical  practices  is  about  developing  the  design  for  learning  so  that  it 
widens participation and collaboration between all involved. Pedagogical approaches with 
an emphasis on the learner are very suitable for open education. The goal is to open up 
the  range  of  pedagogical  practices  via  ICTs  in  order  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of 
learning  design  and  increase  students’  involvement  and  collaboration.  It  is  also  about 
making  pedagogical  practices  visible,  transparent  and  accessible,  by  making  available 
the  rationale  for  learning  design,  the  assessments  and  learning  outcomes.  It  also 
enables  learners  to  design  their  own  learning  path  by  offering  them  a  wide  choice  of 
learning resources. 

5.1.4  Recognition 

Recognition  in  open  education  has  two  meanings:  a)  it  is  the  process,  usually 
carried  out  by  an  accredited  institution,  of  issuing  a  certificate,  diploma  or  title 
which  has  formal  value;  b)  it  is  also  the  process  of  formally  acknowledging  and 
accepting credentials, such as a badge, a certificate, a diploma or title issued by a 
third-party  institution.  These  credentials  should  attest  that  a  set  of  learning 
outcomes (e.g. knowledge, know-how, skills and/or competences) achieved by an 
individual has been assessed by a competent body against a predefined standard. 

Recognition enables open education learners to make the transition from non-formal to 
formal education, to complete a programme of tertiary education in a more flexible way, 
and to get recruited/ promoted at the workplace. When submitting their credentials for 
recognition,  learners  expect  to  gain  valid  credits  which  will  help  them  to  move  ahead 
professionally and in their personal lives.  

Credentialisation also plays an important role in the recognition of open learning. It can 
be  done  in  a  variety  of  formal  or  informal  ways,  and  the  recognising  institution  can 
choose whether to recognise the credentials given, and in what circumstances. 

5.1.5  Collaboration 

Collaboration in open education is about connecting individuals and institutions by 
facilitating  the  exchange  of  practices  and  resources  with  a  view  to  improving 
education.  By  collaborating  around  and  through  open  educational  practices, 
universities  can  move  beyond  the  typical  institutional  collaboration  patterns  and 
engage  individuals  and  communities  to  build  a  bridge  between  informal,  non-
formal and  formal learning. It is a  live and  evolving practice which is  shaped by 
individuals according to context, goals, resources and possibilities, contributing to 
the  lowering  of  barriers  to  education.  It  is  therefore  a  concept  that  must  be  as 
dynamic as its practice. 

Collaboration  in  open  education  is  also  about  removing  barriers  to  education  via  the 
networks  of  individuals  and  institutions.  Learners  must  be  empowered  to  collaborate 
with each other and with the institution and community in order to produce knowledge, 
define their unique learning paths and achieve their goals. More specifically, it has to do 
with any practice or policy that promotes, for example: 

  agreements  to  support  open  educational  practices.  These  can  take  place  at 
different levels: between individuals (formally or informally), intra-institutionally, 
inter-institutionally, nationally at policy level or cross-border. 

 

 

the  exchange  of  knowledge  in  OER  format,  free-of-charge  content  and  courses, 
MOOCs or open access research. 

the co-development of OER and free-of-charge content. 

26 

 
 
 

 

 

 

the  co-development  and  exchange  of  open  educational  practices  with  respect  to 
pedagogies, learning designs, technologies, guidelines, training, accessibility and 
usage of repositories. 

the empowerment of learners to follow their lifelong learning paths. 

the acceptance and recognition of open education certificates and credits by third 
party organisations. 

the co-development of open, innovative and digital learning environments. 

  practices  that  cultivate  values  of  equality,  non-discrimination  and  active 

citizenship. 

 

respect for socio-cultural differences. 

5.1.6  Research 

Openness in  research is about removing barriers to  access to data and research 
outputs, and also about broadening participation in research. 

Openness  in  research  implies  a  paradigm  shift  in  the  modus  operandi  of  research  and 
science  which  affects  the  entire  scientific  process.  The  underlying  idea  is  to  advance 
science as quickly as possible by sharing and collaborating, rather than trying to publish 
first  in  order  to  secure  intellectual  property  rights  and  novelty.  Researchers  can  gain 
from  open  science  activities,  both  as  project  participants  and  as  commentators  on 
research  ideas  and  progress,  because  extended  networks  provide  a  larger  pool  of 
expertise. Richer data sets are also available to them21.  

5.2   The transversal dimensions  

The  transversal  dimensions  of  open  education  cover  'how'  educational  practices  are 
opened  up.  They  provide  the  structure  for  the  realisation  of  the  core  dimensions.  For 
example,  releasing  OER,  research  data  or  MOOCs  to  the  general  public  requires  a 
platform,  some  sort  of  technology  to  support  this  release.  Likewise,  designing  an 
opening up education strategy for a university requires leadership at various levels (top-
down and bottom-up). And without an opening up education strategy it is difficult to plan 
or  to  measure  results.  Moreover,  a  successful  opening  up  education  approach  requires 
quality  monitoring,  evaluation  and  assurance.  These  four  transversal  dimensions, 
technology,  leadership,  strategy  and  quality,  in  any  given  order,  are  the  framework  in 
which these and other dimensions take place. They interact with each other and with the 
other dimensions. This means that they are not static and are not realised in isolation.  

5.2.1 Strategy 

Strategy  in  open  education  is  the  creation  of  a  unique  and  valuable  position  on 
openness, involving different sets of activities. 

Strategy,  in  the  context  of  the  OpenEdu  project,  is  about  defining  the  values,  the 
commitments,  the  opportunities,  the  resources  and  the  capabilities  of  a  HE  institution 
with respect to opening up education.  Openness is a vital component of an institution's 
policy  and  strategy.  It  must  be  integral  to  the  institution’s  mission.  Its  relationship  to 
and  inter-dependence  with  other  aspects  of  the  institution’s  wider  policy  should  be 
clearly  articulated  and  developed  by  a  strategy.  Basing  an  institution’s  strategy  on 
openness  can  enhance  and  enrich  the  conceptual,  operational  and  financial  aspects  of 
the educational offer. 

5.2.2 Technology 

Technology in open education refers to technological infrastructures and software 
which facilitate opening up education in its different dimensions. 

21   European  Commission,  background  document  –  Public  Consultation,  Science  2.0:  Science  in 
Transition, 2014 https://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf 

27 

 
 
 
                                           
Technology  is  a  necessary  part  of  open  education.  Technological  infrastructures  and 
software, either open or closed, work as transversal enablers of the different dimensions.  

Technological  solutions play  an important  role  in  validating  the identity  of  people  being 
assessed  for  the  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  (e.g.  biometrics  and  proctoring),  in 
making  it  easier  to  scale  up  assessment  (test,  peer  to  peer  assessment  tools  and 
automated essay assessment) and in granting digital badges.  

Technological  choices  have  a  direct  impact  on  how  open  education  is  configured. 
Consequently,  institutions  should  consider  technology  when  planning  their  strategies  in 
order to align them and their priorities on open education with the ICT investment they 
make.    The  degree  to  which  the  technology  used  by  an  institution  is  open  reflects  its 
openness  culture.  Institutions  which  are  committed  to  the  greatest  possible  level  of 
openness  will  opt  for  open  standards  and  open  source  technologies  which  are 
interoperable  with  other  platforms.  They  will  also  build  or  use  platforms  which  allow 
learners to interact with one another, upload and share content, download, peer-review 
and modify existing content. 

5.2.3 Quality 

Quality in open education refers to the convergence of the 5 concepts of quality22 
(efficacy, impact, availability, accuracy and excellence) with an institution's open 
education offer and opportunities.  

In  relation  to  an  institution's  open  education  offer,  the  greater  the  confluence  of  the  5 
concepts  of  quality  explained  below  (efficacy,  impact,  availability,  accuracy  and 
excellence), the more reliable and trustworthy this offer will be for open learners. 

  Efficacy: fitness for purpose of the object/concept being assessed. 

 

Impact:  is  a  measure  of  the  extent  to  which  an  object  or  concept  proves 
effective. It is dependent on the nature of the object/concept itself, the context in 
which it is applied and the use to which it is put by the user. 

  Availability:  this  is  a  pre-condition  for  efficacy  and  impact  to  be  achieved,  and 
thus also forms part of the element of quality. In this sense, availability includes 
concepts such as transparency and ease-of-access. 

  Accuracy: is a measure of precision and absence of errors, of a particular process 

or object. 

  Excellence:  compares  the  quality  of  an  object  or  concept  to  its  peers,  and  to  its 
quality-potential  (e.g.  the  maximum  theoretical  quality  potential  it  can  reach) 
(Source: JRC IPTS report, 2014).23  

The  degree  of  quality  of  an  open  education  offer/opportunity  can  be  measured  by 
different  actors,  such  as  the  institution  itself,  its  learners  or  the  State.  The  latter 
measures the compliance with a given country's legislation and the recommendations of 
the object being offered (e.g. a course, a certificate, a degree). It can also be measured 
against the standards of a competent body which can issue credentials, such as a quality 
assurance  agency  or  an  association/community  recognised  by  its  members.  The 
granularity in which quality is measured in open education may also vary, ranging from 
an institution's overall reputation to the quality of a particular offer such as an OER.   

Quality  in  open  education  also  relates  to  the  environment  and  conditions  in  which  an 
open education culture is built in an institution. Staff members involved in producing and 
supporting  open  education  often  require  time  and  deserve  incentives.  An  institution 
which identifies these needs, recognises them as fair and acts responsibly towards them 
is  respecting  a  fundamental  principle  of  excellence  which  is  the  promotion  of  the  best 
conditions for individuals to tap into their greatness.   

22   Camilleri, A., Ehlers, U.D., Palowski, J. (2014) State of the Art Review of Quality Issues related 
to  Open  Educational  Resources.  JRC  Scientific  and  Policy  Reports,  IPTS,  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

23   Ibid. 

28 

 
 
                                           
5.2.4  Leadership 

Leadership  in  open  education  is  the  promotion  of  sustainable  open  education 
activities and initiatives via  a transparent approach  from both the  top-down and 
the  bottom-up.  It  paves  the  way  to  creating  more  openness  by  inspiring  and 
empowering people.  

Leadership  in  open  education  goes  beyond  the  creation  of  strategies  and  activities 
decided at an executive level.  It is above all the identification of champions at different 
levels, both bottom-up and top-down, who will lead open education at the institution in 
different  strands.  It  is  a  transversal  dimension  because  it  supports  open  education 
practices  at  different  levels:  personal  motivation,  task  organisation,  collaboration  and 
outcomes  management.  Leadership  in  open  education  should  promote  actions  that 
enable  the  take  up  of  open  education  across  a  university  by  a  whole  range  of 
stakeholders, including learners. 

29 

 
 
 
 
6.  Conclusions and recommendations 

The research carried out for the OpenEdu Project and its associated studies (OpenCases, 
OpenCred,  OpenSurvey  and  MOOCknowledge)  shows  that  although  opening  up 
education  is  a  policy  priority  in  Europe,  many  higher  education  institutions  in  Member 
States  do  not  have  a  strategic  plan  for  opening  up  their  practices.  There  are  various 
reasons for this:  
a)  there is no consensus on what opening up education means and hence little common 

ground on which to build collaboration;  

b)  opening up education is often seen as only offering OER and MOOCs, or opening up 
research data – it therefore becomes a specific and isolated practice which does not 
always  form  part  of  an  institution’s  overall  educational  strategy  aligned  with  its 
mission; and  

c)  there  is  general  agreement  on  the  positive  value  of  open  education  but  little  clarity 
on its scope and possible practices, or the subsequent benefits to those involved.  

This  report  aimed  to  fill  these  gaps  by  presenting  a  support  framework  for  opening  up 
education  which  introduces  ten  dimensions  of  openness  and  descriptors  for  each  of 
them.  It is a non-prescriptive tool that can be used as needed  to develop insights and 
inspire vision.  

The OpenEdu Project has produced recommendations for HE institutions. Those involved 
in the strategic planning of higher education institutions should contemplate: 

  Having a holistic strategy for opening up education that encompasses the 10 

dimensions of the OpenEdu framework 
Opening  up  education  can  be  more  meaningful  and  promote  social  change  if  efforts 
are not focused on a single dimension of openness (e.g. opening up content as OER, 
opening  up  courses  as  MOOCs,  or  opening  up  research  as  open  data).  Instead, 
efforts  should  be  made  to  combine  a  number  of  different  elements  which  together 
and  on  a  large  scale  have  the  potential  to  reconfigure  the  way  higher  education  is 
realised.  

  Making the open education strategy part of the overall institutional strategy 

A holistic strategy  for  opening up education that is fully integrated with the mission 
and  vision  of  the  HEI  and  targets  local  and  global  needs  is  essential.  Including 
openness  within  an  institution's  education  strategy  can  enhance  and  enrich  the 
conceptual,  operational  and  financial  aspects  of  its  educational  offer.  Without  an 
institutional  strategy  that  encompasses  openness,  open  educational  practices  would 
remain experimental and would be easily entangled in discourses which, in isolation, 
may not be as effective in supporting the modernisation of higher education.   

  Promoting  intra,  inter  and  cross-border  institutional  collaborations  and 

partnerships in order to achieve open education goals 

Intrinsic  to  the  concept  of  open  education  is  collaboration  and  sharing.  Inter-
institutional collaboration optimises in-house resources and human capital. It is also 
a step towards scaling up openness: credits can be mutually recognised; courses and 
content  can  be  co-produced;  administrative  tasks  can  be  co-managed  and  research 
and  technology  can  be  shared  with  colleagues  and  third-party  organisations,  to  cite 
just  some  of  the  possibilities.  Furthermore,  cross-border  collaboration  and 
partnerships can provide the leverage for opening up education at a European level, 
enabling local strategies to have a global impact. 

  Exploring new practices and welcoming changes 

Trying  to  do  new  things  in  old  ways  often  does  not  lead  to  the  expected  results. 
Opening up education is about being open to new horizons, new practices, new ways 
of doing things and therefore being open to change. Fully embracing open education 
requires  HE  institutions  to  have  courage,  commitment,  strategy  and  vision.  It  is 

30 

 
 
about  sharing  the  ownership  of  a  lifelong  project  which  will  be  configured  and 
reconfigured over time.   

  Revising  their  practices  at  all  levels:  mission  statement  and  vision,  current 
organisational  management  structures  and  day-to-day  policies,  and  the 
institution’s role in the community and globally 

Open  education  is  a  tool  for  social  change.  Once  HE  institutions  fully  embrace 
openness and transparency in their day-to-day practices, enabled by the use of ICTs, 
the  modernisation  of  higher  education  will  be  pushed  forward  across  Europe.  Local 
and global collaboration will be possible, new ideas will be generated  and resources 
will be better deployed. Above all, new practices on knowledge exchange and credit 
recognition  will  be  possible.  These,  together,  have  the  potential  to  make  education 
more inclusive and more mobile, and to lower barriers to access and progression. At 
the  same  time,  education  will  fit  more  closely  with  the  fast-paced  changes  in  the 
needs of the workforce and labour market.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References  

Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L. and Littlejohn, A (2012). Open practices: briefing 

paper. Available at: 
https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/51668352/OpenPracticesBriefing Last 
accessed 05/08/2015. 

Camilleri, A.F., Ehlers, U.D, Palowski, J. (2014). State of the Art Review of Quality Issues 

related to Open Educational Resources (OER). JRC IPTS Report. Luxembourg: 
Publication Offices of the European Union. 

Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007). Available at:  

http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration. Last accessed 
05/08/2015.   

CEDEFOP (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy. Available at:  

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/4064. 
Last accessed 05/08/2015.   

Eades, K.M. (editor) (2010). The Portable MBA. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 5th 

edition. 

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie Y. and Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). Opportunities and 

challenges for the future of MOOCs and open education in Europe. Wenner-Gren 
Internationals Series, London: Portland Press Last accessed 05/07/2016 
http://www.portlandpresspublishing.com/sites/default/files/Editorial/Wenner/PPL
Wenner_Ch07.pdf  

Kalz, M., Krejins, K., Walhout, J., Castaño-Munoz, J., Espasa, A., Tovar, E. (2015). 

Setting up a European Cross-Provider Data Collection on Open Online Courses. 
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Volume 16, 
Number 6. Last accessed 09/03/2016 
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2150/3553 

Margaryan, A; Bianco, M; and Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive 

Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80.  

McAndrew, P. (2010). "Defining openness: updating the concept of "open" for a 

connected world. JIME: Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Available at: 
http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/view/2010-10. Last accessed 05/08/2015. 

McAndrew, P; Inamorato dos Santos, A; Lane, A; Godwin, S; Okada, A; Wilson, T; 

Connolly, T; Ferreira, G; Buckingham, S; Bretts, J; and Webb, R (2009). 
OpenLearn Research Report 2006-2008. Available at: 
http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/6/2009727_62936_o1.pdf. Last accessed 
05/08/2015. 

Mulder, F., & Janssen, B. (2013). Opening up education. In: Jacobi, R., Jelgerhuis H., & 
van der Woert N. (Eds.). Trend report: Open educational resources 2013, SURF 
SIG OER, Utrecht, pp. 36-42. Available at:  
https://www.surf.nl/binaries/content/assets/surf/en/knowledgebase/2013/Trend
+Report+OER+2013_EN_DEF+07032013+%28LR%29.pdf. Last accessed 
05/08/2015. 

Murphy, A. (2013). Open Educational practices in higher education: institutional adoption 

and challenges. Distance Education, vol. 34, n◦ 2, 201-217. Available at (DOI): 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.79364. Last accessed 05/08/2015.   

32 

 
 
 
OpenCred (2015). Witthaus, G; Nkuyubwatsi, B; Conole, G; Inamorato dos Santos, A; 

and Punie, Y (2015). An Assessment-Recognition Matrix for Analysing 
Institutional Practices in the Recognition of Open Learning. E- learning papers. 
Available at: http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/download/file/fid/37944 

Ros et al (2014). UNED OER experience: from OCW to Open UNED. IEEE Transactions on 

Education, vol. 57, n◦ 4.     

UNESCO (2014). How Openness Impacts on Higher Education?. UNESCO Policy Briefs.  

Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231138e.pdf . Last 
accessed 05/08/2015. 

Uvalić-Trumbić, S. and Daniel, J. (2014). A Guide to Quality in Post-Traditional Online 

Higher Education. Academic Partnerships. Available at: 
http://www.icde.org/filestore/News/2014_March-April/Guide2.pdf. Last accessed 
05/08/2015. 

Open University (2015). OU Web Accessibility Guidelines. Available at: 

http://www.open.ac.uk/about/web-standards/files/web-standards-
pa/file/ecms/web-content/OU-Web-Accessibility-Guidelines.pdf . Last accessed 
05/08/2015. 

Weller, M. (2014). The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it does not feel like 

victory. London: Ubiquity Press. Available at (DOI): 
http://dx.doi.org/105334/bam. 

Wiley, D. and Hilton III, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization and the 

Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. In International Review of Research in 
Open Distance Learning, vol. 10, number 5.  

W3C. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Available at: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.  Last accessed 05/08/2015. 

Witthaus, G., Inamorato dos Santos. A., Childs, M., Tannhäuser, A., Conole, G., 
Nkuyubwatsi, B., Punie, Y. (2016). Validation of Non-formal MOOC-based 
Learning: An Analysis of Assessment and Recognition Practices in Europe 
(OpenCred). JRC IPTS Science for Policy Report, EUR 27660 EN   Last accessed 
09/03/2016: 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC96968/lfna27660en
n.pdf 

33 

 
 
 
 
Wikis 

Access dimension: http://openeducation-accessdimension.wikispaces.com 

Content dimension: http://openeducation-contentdimension.wikispaces.com/ 

Pedagogy dimension: http://openeducation-pedagogydimension.wikispaces.com 

Recognition dimension: http://openeducation-recognitiondimension.wikispaces.com/ 

Collaboration dimension: http://openeducation-collaboration.wikispaces.com/ 

Research dimension:  http://openeducation-researchdimension.wikispaces.com/ 

Strategy dimension: http://openeducation-strategy.wikispaces.com 

Technology dimension: http://openeducation-technologydimension.wikispaces.com/  

Leadership dimension: http://openeducation-leadershipdimension.wikispaces.com 

Quality dimension: https://openeducation-qualitydimension.wikispaces.com/ 

List of abbreviations  

ECTS   European Credit Transfer System 

EQF   European Qualifications Framework 

EU  

European Union 

HE  

Higher Education 

HEI  Higher Education Institution 

MOOC  Massive Open Online Course 

MS   Member States 

OE   Open Education 

OEP   Open Educational Practices 

OER   Open Educational Resources 

List of figures 

Figure 1: The 10 dimensions of open education......................................................... 8 

Figure 2: Enabling conditions for involvement in open higher education ..................... 16 

Figure 3: Open Education Provision (source: OpenSurvey Report, 2016) .................... 18 

Figure 4: Open Education existence in universities' mission statements ..................... 18 

Figure 5: OpenCred Recognition Traffic Light Model ................................................. 20 

Figure 6: The 10 Dimensions of Open Education...................................................... 24 

List of tables 

Table 1:   Credentialisation versus Recognition of Learning Outcomes ...................... 20 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I – The OpenEdu Framework 

CORE DIMENSION 1 

ACCESS 
Definition  

Rationale 

Access in open education is the removal or lowering of economic, technological, geographical and institutional barriers which 
obstruct the doorway to knowledge. It grants permission to learners to engage with educational content, courses, programmes, 
communities of practice, networks and other types of knowledge sharing environments, media and activities in formal and non-
formal education. It is also about enabling informal and independent learners to seek learning opportunities and get recognition for 
their learning.   

Widening access to information and knowledge is a core value of openness and a key enabler of formal and non-formal education. 
Consequently,  it  is  one  of  the  main  goals  of  open  education.  In  practice,  from  an  educational  institution  perspective,  this  broad 
understanding  of  access  can  be  promoted  at  three  interrelated  levels:  access  to  programmes  (which  lead  to  a  degree  or  full 
qualification), access to courses and access to educational content (free of charge content or OER24). It also means access to their 
related communities of practices and networks. This includes all applicable educational services offered by the institution, as well as 
access to teachers and other learners.                                    

5 components 

Cost | Accessibility | Flexible learning | Lower entrance requirements for courses and programmes | People 

The components 
can be considered 
at different access 
levels to 
programmes, 
courses and 
content. 

In order to facilitate access to education, five components can be promoted by institutions.  In practice, these components can be 
embedded in at least three different levels (programmes, courses, and content). Depending on the level in which the focus is placed, 
different openness practices and strategies emerge. 
Cost of access to resources, courses and programmes.  Cost is a key barrier that must be removed or lowered if access to 
courses and educational resources is to be widened.  Although there is always cost involved in the provision of education and in 
taking advantage of education opportunities (e.g. from the learner’s perspective, there may be the cost of internet connection or the 
opportunity cost of devoting time to study), the lower the cost, the more open the access to education. New strategies related to 
open education (free of charge content and open online courses, OER and MOOCs) are challenging educational provision models and 
configuring alternative approaches that reduce the cost of formal and non-formal education for learners (e.g. by using free open 
software).  
Accessibility and adaptation of educational content (and channels, modes of communication) to specific needs (e.g. 
physically-challenged learners). Accessibility is understood as real access possibilities for all, regardless of personal 
characteristics. Examples of accessibility measures are assistive technologies which focus on language translation, voice recording 

24   The differences between free content and OER are treated in the content dimension. 

35 

 
 
 
                                           
of written text, and adapted websites/social media.   
There are web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) that cover a wide range of recommendations for making web content more 
accessible.25 Some specific recommendations 26are that web content and systems should be:  
  Perceivable:  information and user interface components must be presented to users in ways they can perceive. 
  Operable – user interface components and navigation must be operable. 
  Understandable – information and the operation of user interface must be understandable. 
  Robust – content must be robust enough to be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive 

technologies. 

In specific terms, to make open education accessible to physically-challenged open learners, open education websites and 
repositories could be compliant at least with27:  
  Screen readers: users with screen reading technology should have no difficulty accessing the text-based content. 
  Settings: users who require specific operating systems or browser settings should not have any difficulties with the site, nor 

should users with screen magnifiers. 

  Video and audio materials: it should be possible to play this material through a range of different media players or download 

the content.  Textual descriptions or transcripts should accompany the educational resources whenever possible. 

Flexible learning via internet and mobile technologies, overcoming time and space barriers. In order to facilitate access to 
education, the Internet and mobile technologies not dependent upon the Internet can be used to overcome temporal and space 
barriers. This flexibility is especially important for non-traditional learners who have more time and infrastructural constraints and 
usually constitute the bulk of open education learners (e.g. adult, workers, physically-challenged learners)  
Entrance requirements to courses and programmes. Ideally, open education should not have entrance restrictions such as a 
minimum level of education, or country of residence. Entrance requirements for non-formal education are decided by the institution. 
However, for formal education, national legal frameworks may prevent higher education institutions from eliminating entrance 
requirements. Moreover, the different national policies on entrance requirements can reduce the opportunities for learners to choose 
cross-border formal education, even when it is provided by open and distance universities.  The lack of practical processes for the 
recognition of prior (open) learning across countries can also limit learner access to formal education and mobility. 
People Open education content, courses and programmes should enable learners to reach and interact with teachers and other 
learners, in order to exchange ideas and to facilitate learning. 

25   See WCAG 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/)  
26   Source: Open University web accessibility guidelines 
27   Source http://www.open.ac.uk/about/web-standards/files/web-standards-pa/file/ecms/web-content/OU-Web-Accessibility-Guidelines.pdf 

36 

 
 
                                           
Transversal Dimensions 

Descriptors 

Access to programmes 
Strategy 

 The offer of MOOC-based programmes and/or programmes based on free-of-charge (open) online courses (or OER, micro-

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

programmes, nanodegrees) is part of the official institutional strategy. 

The institution: 
 has reduced/removed the entrance requirements to open education courses and programmes.   
 has specific measures to ensure the accessibility of its open education offer. 
 has developed a strategy to offer programmes leading to  full degrees 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
has the adequate technical infrastructure to offer online programmes (servers, connections, etc.). 
 has adequate digital services to offer and to manage online programmes (VLE, supported assessment, etc.). 
 has adequate technologies and know-how to offer accessible open education programmes (e.g. to physically-challenged 

learners). 

 Other. Please specify. 
 The institution implements quality assurance mechanisms related to processes and outputs of MOOC-based programmes 

and/or free-of-charge (open) online courses (or micro-programmes, nanodegrees), and OER. 

 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
supports the creation of full programmes consisting of free-of-charge (open) online courses, MOOCs and/or OER, leading to 

the granting of credits, degrees and/or the accreditation and recognition of learning.  

 supports the creation of micro- programmes consisting of free-of-charge (open) online courses, MOOCs and/or OER leading to 

nanodegrees. 

 The institutional staff members are co-responsible for the creation of accessible programmes. 
 Other. Please specify. 

Access to courses 

Strategy 

The institution: 
has a policy supporting the offer of OER, MOOCs, and /or free-of-charge (open) online courses.  
 has a policy supporting the adaptation of courses to special needs (e.g. physically-challenged learners). 
 has a financial sustainability model for the offer of OER, MOOCs/ and or free-of-charge (open) online courses. 
The institution: 
offers mechanisms for teachers to engage with open learners. 

37 

 
 
 
Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

Access to content 

Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

 offers mechanisms for open learners and researchers to reach academics and other staff members of the institution.  
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
offers adequate technical infrastructure to teachers who aim to offer MOOCs, OER and free-of-charge (open) online courses 

(e.g. MOOC platform). 

 takes advantage of supportive technologies in order to promote accessibility to content and courses. 
 provides online content that can be accessed from any device and operating system. 
 Other. Please specify. 
 The institution has quality assurance mechanisms related to MOOCs and free-of-charge (open) online courses. 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
offers techno-pedagogical support for staff who want to create OER, MOOCs and free-of-charge (open) online courses. 
 offers incentives (e.g. financial, time-related…) for staff who want to create OER, MOOCs and free-of-charge (open) online 

courses. 

 seeks to identify staff members who are motivated by the idea of producing OER, MOOCs and free-of-charge (open) online 

courses.  

 Other. Please specify. 

The institution: 
has policies on OER and/or free-of-charge (open) online content. 
 has a sustainability model for the creation and offer of OER and free-of-charge (open) online content. 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
produces online content can be accessed from any device and operating system. 
 seeks to tag content appropriately to increase the possibilities of finding it. 
 has an open repository of online resources which can be accessed free of charge, by anyone. 
 makes institutionally-developed resources available at no cost users (Learning Resources or Research publications), making 

them visible in a repository (or the relevant portal), accompanied by metrics on patterns of download and use. 

 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
encourages users to give their feedback on digital content, thereby allowing social mechanisms of quality control. 
 has quality assurance mechanisms related to digital content. 
 automatically monitors when the content was created and when it will need updating (e.g. every 2 years).  

38 

 
 
Leadership 

 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
 offers techno-pedagogical support for staff who want to create free-of-charge (open) online content or remix OER. 
 offers incentives (e.g. financial, available working time…) for staff who want to create free-of-charge (open) online content. 
 seeks to identify staff members who are motivated by the idea of free-of-charge (open) online content production and use.  
 Other. Please specify. 

39 

 
 
 
 
CORE DIMENSION 2 

CONTENT 

Definition  

Rationale 

Content  in  open  education  refers  to  materials  for  teaching  and  learning,  and  research  outputs,  which  are  free  of  charge  and 
available to all. 

Content in open education encompasses texts of all sorts, textbooks, course materials, pictures, games, podcasts, video lectures, 
software, data, research papers and outputs, and any other type of educational material that conveys information which can be 
used for teaching and learning. It can be open licensed, in the public domain or copyrighted but should be 'gratis' and accessible by 
everyone without restrictions. 

2 components 

Open educational resources (OER) | free of charge content  

OER  
OER constitute a key component of open education. OER are content that is printed or made available digitally The two main 
characteristics of OER are that they are "libre" (openly-licensed content) and at the same time "gratis"(free of charge). There are 
different types OER (e.g. fully licensed or partially licensed). Public domain content can also be placed in this category. Using OER 
for teaching and learning reduces the possibility that users infringe copyright. At the same time OER grants greater permissions in 
the use of content, such as adaptation, translation, remix, reuse and redistribution, depending on the type of license applied to the 
content. 
OER range from individual learning objects (e.g. a picture with a specific teaching purpose) to full courses (e.g. a MOOC or an open 
(libre and gratis) online course). 

Free-of-charge content  
Free-of-charge content refers to content that is printed or made available digitally and 'gratis' but remains copyrighted. Though 
users do not pay to access it, they cannot reuse, adapt or share it without seeking permission from the copyright holder.  
Free-of-charge content ranges from individual learning objects to full courses (e.g. a MOOC or an open (gratis) online course). 
Whenever appropriate, free-of-charge content should be fully licensed as OER, thereby granting users greater permissions in 
handling the content.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transversal Dimensions 

Descriptors 

OER 
Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

The institution: 
has a policy on the production and use of free-of-charge content. 
 uses, produces and offers OER in order to improve its content production mechanisms. 
 produces, uses and offers OER in the form of MOOCs and/or open (libre and gratis) online courses. 
 offers information sessions and/or support materials on different types of open licenses. 
 produces, uses and offers OER as a visibility mechanism to attract students and increase its reputation. 
 collaborates with other institutions in the production/remix/reuse/redistribution of OER. 
 encourages staff members to produce, use and share OER.  
 encourages its students to use OER.  
 encourages its students to produce and share OER. 
 Other. Please specify. 

The institution: 
explores different digital tools to create and make available meaningful content and with appropriate granularity. 
 seeks to use audiovisual resources to enhance the content produced. 
 automatically monitors when the content was created and when it will need updating (e.g. every 2 years). 
 allows content users to revise and remix content on the institutional platform on which it is offered 
 allows users to create, remix and share content on the institutional platform. 
 seeks to tag content appropriately to increase its findability. 
 places its content on interoperable platforms (e.g. IMS Common cartridge compliant etc.). 
 Other. Please specify. 

The institution: 
has a quality check mechanism in place for its content production (both OER and free-of-charge content). 
 supports and encourages staff members to develop meaningful assessments for its open education offers. 
 makes informed decisions on the different types of robustness of assessment for open education (see OpenCred model). 
 informs its open learners of what sorts of accreditation they may/may not get for studying with a given content.  
 has guidelines on different OER and free-of-charge content granularity. 
 encourages quality checks via social mechanisms by enabling user feedback on OER/ free of charge content. 
 Other. Please specify. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Leadership 

 Staff members at the institution proactively explore new and suitable assessment practices for the institution's open 

education offer. 

The institution: 
 is committed to being at the forefront of free content offer in its region or country. 
 seeks to be at the forefront of innovation on OER assessment techniques and tools. 
 seeks to identify staff members who are motivated by the idea of OER and /or free-of-charge content production and use.  
 Other. Please specify. 

Free-of-charge  
content 
Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

The institution: 
has a policy on the production and use free-of-charge content.  
 produces, uses and offers free-of-charge content as a visibility mechanism to attract students and increase reputation. 
 produces, uses and offers free of charge content in the form of MOOCs and/or open (gratis) online courses. 
 collaborates with other institutions in the production and distribution of its free-of-charge content. 
 encourages staff members to transform their production of free-of-charge content into OER whenever possible and 

appropriate.  

 encourages its students to use free-of-charge content. 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution  
explores different digital tools to create and make available meaningful content with appropriate granularity. 
 seeks to use audiovisual resources to enhance the content produced. 
 automatically monitors when the content was created and when it will need updating (e.g. every 2 years). 
 seeks to tag content appropriately to increase its findability. 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
has an internal quality check mechanism in place for its free content. 
 provides quality checks via social mechanisms by encouraging user feedback on free content. 
 Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
engages staff members in the proposal of its free content.  
 rewards (with money, time or career advancement) staff members who engage in producing and using free content. 
 is committed to being at the forefront of free content offer in its region or country. 
 seeks to identify staff members who are motivated by the idea of free content production and use.  
 Other. Please specify. 

42 

 
 
 
CORE DIMENSION 3 

PEDAGOGY 
Definition  

Rationale 

Openness in pedagogy refers to the use of technologies to broaden access and make the range of teaching and learning practices 
more transparent, sharable and visible. 
Opening up pedagogical practices is about developing the design for learning so that it widens participation and collaboration 
between all involved.  Pedagogical approaches with an emphasis on the learner are very suitable to open education. The goal is to 
open up the range of pedagogical practices via ICTs in order to enhance the effectiveness of the learning design and increase 
students’ involvement and collaboration. It is also about making pedagogical practices visible, transparent and accessible, by 
making available the rationale for the learning design, the assessments and learning outcomes, and also enabling learners to 
design their own learning path with a wide choice of learning resources.  

5 components 

Supported open learning| Personalised teaching | Collaborative and networked learning | Use of authentic resources | 
Sharing educational resources and pedagogical practices  

ICT can enhance the variety of pedagogical approaches by facilitating: 
Supported open learning: Learners take the initiative and the responsibility for their learning processes but they are supported 
by a mix of media, resources and practices.  Learners decide what topic to study, select the learning resources and means, and 
manage their learning time. They also assess their own learning outcomes, at times counting on other peers or on full assessment 
by the institution. This type of learning can be pursued at any time, in any place and at any age, but requires commitment, self-
discipline and goal-setting. The institution can provide support to open learners to follow their studies independently, such as 
advice on learning pathway, tutorials, call in phone line and online support, career and accreditation advice, online communities of 
practice and any other type of suitable support for open learning.  
Personalised teaching. Due to the increasing availability of learning technologies, a more personalized approach to teaching and 
learning can be taken. The use of learning analytics for example, to detect learners' online patterns of behaviour and preferences, 
and also personalised learning resources, can be pursued. 
Collaborative and networked learning. Digital communication and collaboration tools make it easier for learners and lecturers 
to collaborate. In addition, these tools, especially when they take advantage of a social network, facilitate the connection among 
individuals interested in the same topic. Thus they support learning in communities and networks that go beyond the institution. 
The nature of open education allows it to be used for implementing collaborative learning. Examples are team projects which 
involve searching, remixing and modifying OER. 
Use of authentic resources OER, collectively-produced learning materials, and real practitioner/learner networks, are useful 

43 

 
 
 
 
resources which can make learning activities more meaningful and authentic. Technology can also enable immersive learning via 
simulations and virtual laboratories. 
Sharing educational resources and pedagogical practices. Open education calls for the use, sharing and adaptation of free-
of-charge digital materials, OER and learning design rationales. It also enables educators to share their teaching practices, get 
advice and learn from colleagues in order to improve their own practices.  

Transversal Dimensions 

Descriptors 

Supported open learning 
Strategy 

□ The institution's open education policy supports the use of technology-enhanced inquiry-based learning in their courses.  
□ The institution's open education policy supports the use of open education in order to offer flexibility in the curricula (and 

learning goals), facilitate students’ choice of their own learning processes (e.g. recognising participation in MOOCs or online 
courses offered by other universities).  

□ The institution's open education policy includes all types of learning services for open learners such as learning pathway 

design advice, tutoring, online resources, assessment and accreditation support. 

□ The use of ICT/ open education for personalised learning is considered to be a tool that increases the efficiency of open 

education provision (reducing costs and enhancing results). 

□ The creation of modular curricula that allow students to plan self-directed learning pathways, is considered by the 

institution to be one of its strategies in the provision of open education. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

The institution: 
□ has technologies that support peer-reviewing by open learners.   
□ offers technologies that enable the mapping of students’ own learning. 
□ offers technologies for the creation of learning portfolios and pathways that can be openly accessed and transferred to 

other platforms. 

□ makes use of a range of learning technologies to support online or blended learning. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Quality 

Leadership 

□ has a quality monitoring system that checks the efficiency of its services to support open learning. 
□ Other(s) Please specify. 
□ The institution's open education policy includes the offer of guidance (by lecturers, faculties or a central service) to 

independent learners who approach the institution for help on deciding on a self-learning path. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

44 

 
 
 
 
Personalised teaching 

Strategy 

□ The institution's open education policy encourages the use of diverse technology-enhanced pedagogical methods for OER, 

MOOCs and free (and open) online courses in order to adapt education to the needs of the learners.  

□ The institution's open education policy supports the use of learning analytics and/or adaptive learning in order to personalise 

the courses, content or methods to the needs of the learners.  

Technology 

□ The institution's open education policy includes an ethical framework for the use of learning analytics in open courses. 

Quality 

□ The offer of optional paid-for teaching services to independent learners is designed as a way of enhancing the quality of 

the learning experience.  

□ Other. Please specify. 

Leadership 

The institution: 
□ offers techno-pedagogical support and continuous professional development to its lecturers on how to innovate pedagogy 

using ICT and open education to create learner-centred courses. 

□ offers incentives for staff who aim to innovate the pedagogical design of their courses using ICT and open education to 

develop learner-centred courses. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Collaborative and networked learning 

Strategy 

□ The institution's open education policy supports technology-enhanced, networked and distributed learning where the 

teachers act as facilitators and the learners take control of their own learning (e.g. participation of registered learners in 
MOOCs, development of cMOOCs – connectivist Massive Open Online Courses). 

□ The institution promotes collaborative learning via ICT as part of the pedagogical strategies for open education.  
□ The institution promotes collaborative learning between peers using OER (e.g. team projects which involve searching, 

remixing and modifying OER or the searching and use of open data). 

□ The institution's open education policy supports and encourages collaborative and networked learning which takes place 

between different institutions (e.g. inter-institutional collaboration). 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

□ The institution makes use of learning technologies to support collaborative learning (e.g. discussion forums, joint course 

assignments). 

□ Other. Please specify. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quality 

Leadership 

□ Peer quality check is part of the quality monitoring procedure of the institution.  
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ offers techno-pedagogical support on how to innovate pedagogy through collaborative and networked learning using ICTs 

and open education.  

□ offers incentives for staff who want to innovate pedagogical practices through collaborative and networked learning using 

ICTs and open education. 

Use of authentic resources  
Strategy 

The institution: 
□ promotes the participation of the learners in communities that go beyond the institution. 
□ promotes the use of OER and open data for the solution of real word problems by using authentic resources. (e.g. OER, open 

Technology 
Quality 

Leadership 

data). 

□ promotes the contribution of learners to real public knowledge resources (e.g. Wikipedia, wikis). 
□ The institution has technologies and policies that allow and support the sharing of research.  
□ The integration of real word resources, data or communities in pedagogical practices is considered one of the quality criteria 

of the courses (quality check). 

The institution: 
□ offers techno-pedagogical support on how to innovate pedagogy by integrating online real word resources, data or 

communities.   

□ offers incentives for staff who aim to innovate pedagogy by integrating online resources, data or creating/supporting 

communities of practice. 

Sharing educational resources and pedagogical practices 
Strategy 

□ The institution's open education policy promotes pedagogical exchanges among teacher (lecture videos, peer learning, 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

teaching approaches ideas etc.). 

□ The institutional policy promotes the sharing and reuse of OER created by other lecturers. 
□ The institution promotes the exchange of educational practices by supporting open source technologies and tools that allow 

users to make comments and download educational content. 

□ The institution supports the sharing of innovative education practices and allow third parties to peer-review and comment 
on them to assess and improve their quality (e.g. comments from a group of teachers who collaborate openly online). 

The institution: 
□ plays a proactive role in encouraging staff members to discuss their educational practices and those of third parties. 
□ offers techno-pedagogical support on how to share educational practices. 
□ offers incentives for staff who want to share educational practices.  

46 

 
 
RECOGNITION 
Definition  

Rationale 

7 components 

CORE DIMENSION 4 

Recognition in open education has two meanings: a) it is the process, usually carried out by an accredited institution, of issuing a 
certificate, diploma or title which has formal value; b) it is also the process of formally acknowledging and accepting credentials, 
such as a badge, a certificate, a diploma or title issued by a third-party institution. These credentials should attest that a set of 
learning  outcomes  (e.g.  knowledge,  know-how,  skills  and/or  competences)  achieved  by  an  individual  has  been  assessed  by  a 
competent body against a predefined standard.  

Recognition enables open education learners to make the transition from non-formal to formal education, to complete a 
programme of tertiary education in a more flexible way, or to get recruited/ promoted at the workplace. When submitting their 
credentials for recognition, learners expect to gain 'validated credits' which will help them to move ahead professionally and in 
their personal lives.  Credentialisation also plays an important role in the recognition of open learning. It can be done in a variety of 
formal or informal ways, and the recognising institution can choose whether, and in which circumstances, to recognise the 
credentials given. 
Assessment |  Identity validation | Trust and Transparency |  RPL (recognition of prior learning) |  Fast Track 
Recognition | Qualification |  Social recognition 
Assessment 
Assessment is the core element of the recognition process. It is defined as the process of appraising knowledge, know-how, skills 
and/or competences of an individual against predefined criteria (measurement of learning outcomes). Assessment is typically 
followed by certification (CEDEFOP, 2004/2014). In the case of open education, this can be formal or non-formal certification. The 
type of certification awarded to open learners will depend on the robustness of assessment (OpenCred, 2015). This refers to the 
extent to which the assessment undertaken by open learners can ensure the appropriate verification of their identities and their 
knowledge/skills.  

Identity validation 
The thorough verification of the learner’s identity for the sake of assessment and certification is considered essential by 
universities and is also highly valued by the learners. The most common systems used to identify distance learners, on MOOCs for 
example, are biometrics and proctoring. The biometrics system consists of the cross-checking of the learners’ photos with their 
typing pattern. The proctoring system is the monitoring of distance learners taking exams via webcams or specific software. There 
is also the more conventional exam on a specific site, where learners are monitored by a person. This type of exam is still 
considered by universities to be the most reliable due to its similarity with that of the traditional education system.   

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Trust and Transparency 
Both trust and transparency are essential for the success of recognition practices in open education. Trust in the open learning 
recognition context means the reputation built by the institution providing the open education (MOOCs, OER and OCW) and the 
responsibility with which it engages with open educational practices. Trust has to do with relationship building, reputation 
management, networking, community engagement, quality control, values and mission. Transparency seems easier to achieve than 
trust, since it requires that the institution takes steps to increase the visibility of its open education practices, such as course 
design processes, syllabus and assessment procedures. Inter-institutionally, trust has to do with the relationship the institutions 
build with one another. The more they collaborate and share, the more they make visible their processes and procedures, their 
values and goals, and the more trustworthy they become.  

RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) 
RPL is the process for recognising learning that took place previously in informal, formal or non-formal contexts: for example, in 
the workplace and through life experiences. This method of assessment [leading to the award of credits] considers whether a 
learner can demonstrate that they meet the assessment requirements for a unit or course through knowledge, understanding or 
skills they already possess, without having to undertake new learning. Once recognised through this process, prior learning can be 
used to gain credits or exemption for qualifications, and/or for personal and career development (Quality Assurance Agency –QAA, 
UK; OpenAwards.org).  Learners can usually achieve recognition of prior learning by: 

  Undertaking the same assessments as those following the formal course of learning and assessment that lead to the 

desired unit or qualification. These assessments may be undertaken without attending the teaching sessions. 

  Submitting a portfolio of evidence based on previous learning, skills and / or competence cross referenced to the learning 

outcomes and assessment criteria of the unit or units for which RPL is being sought. 

The drawback of RPL for open education is that it is not scalable, since the portfolio needs to be assessed by a lecturer or a 
designated committee, who will look at it against the original syllabus of the course. This process can be lengthy and time 
consuming, particularly when agreement is sought. Often, the decision to award credits with RPL procedures relies entirely upon 
the decision of the lecturer or committee in charge of the dossier of the learner.  

Fast Track Recognition 
This is a procedure where a group of universities, members of a consortium or not, agree to mutually recognize the certificates of 
open learners who are looking for credit transfers and formal recognition.  This means that, via collaboration, the institutions agree 
upon the quality standards and assessment procedures which satisfy their requirements for the validation and recognition of 
previous open learning. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Qualification:  
Qualification in the open education context means 'formal qualification'.  It is the formal outcome (certificate, diploma or title) of 
an assessment process which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes 
to given standards and/or possesses the necessary competence to do a job in a specific area of work. A qualification confers 
official recognition of the value of learning outcomes in the labour market and in education and training.  A qualification can be a 
legal entitlement to practice a trade (OECD). 
Source:  CEDEFOP, 2008/2014, based on Eurydice, 2006; European Training Foundation, 1997; OECD 2007; ILO 1998. 
Qualifications in open education depend on institutions being able to create learning paths that lead to full programmes of study.  
Social recognition 

In the context of open education recognition, social recognition is the value given by society to badges and micro-credentials 
obtained on the completion of a MOOC or another type of learning via open education (such as OCW). Although social recognition 
is not a formal type of recognition of learning achievements, it has increasingly been accepted as proof of knowledge by 
employers and by universities. 

Transversal Dimensions 

Descriptors 

Assessment 
Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

□ Paid-for open education assessment (in MOOCs/OCW, free-of-charge online courses etc.) is part of the business plan of the 

institution. 

□ Free open education assessment is part of the strategy of the institution. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ uses biometrics systems to verify the learner's identity during assessments. 
□ uses proctoring services to verify the learner's identity in assessments at a distance. 
□ uses technology to verify the identity of the open learner. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ has a quality control procedure to verify the design and the undertaking of open education assessments. 
□ has a quality control procedure for the open online courses to which it wishes to award credits. 
□ The institution encourages the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) mapping of its open education courses.  
□ Other. Please specify. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Identity validation 

Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

The institution: 
□ invests in hiring/developing proctoring/biometrics services for identity validation of open learners. 
□ accepts and performs face-to-face assessment of open learners as a form of identity validation. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ uses proctoring services to verify the learner's identity in assessments at a distance. 
□ uses biometrics systems to verify the learner's identity during assessments. 
□ draws upon decentralised infrastructures for issuing ‘travel-well credentials' (e.g. blockchain).  
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution has established measures to control the reliability of the identity validation procedures of open learners. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution has policies to support and encourage the thorough verification of the open learner's identity during 

assessment.  

□ Other. Please specify. 

Trust and Transparency 

Strategy 

The institution: 
□ values and accepts certificates and qualifications in the format of credit transfer from open learners from other institutions. 
□ seeks to develop long-lasting partnerships with other institutions in order to increase its network and add further value to its 

reputation. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

□ The institution makes use of technology and social media to communicate to open learners and partners its values, good 

practices and experiences/opportunities in open education 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Quality 

The institution: 
□ gives clear guidelines to staff members on how to design for open education, with strong emphasis on descriptions of 

expected learning outcomes. 

□ gives clear guidelines to staff members on how to design for open education, with strong emphasis on detailed descriptions 

of the assessment procedures. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

50 

 
 
 
Leadership 

□ The institution proactively informs the learner about the existence (or not) of some open courses components in their 

initiatives, such as paid-for assessment and price, quality control procedures, credits to be gained per course, requirements 
for successful study, etc. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

RPL 
Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

Fast Track Recognition 
Strategy 

Technology 

□ The institution uses RPL as way to assess and recognise open learning. This is a mid-term strategy leading to the 

establishment of mechanisms for fast-track recognition. 

□ RPL is part of the strategy to recruit new students. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ RPL is done with the support of technologies that enable the blind validation by experts of the institutional verdict on the 

learners' portfolio. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution has an internal committee which is in charge of assessing the department's decisions on the open learners’ 

portfolios. 

□ RPL carries out blind validation by experts of the institutional verdict on the open learners' portfolio. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ values and rewards departments and individuals who actively encourage and support RPL for open learners. 
□ has identified champions of RPL for open learners, who are in charge of developing strategies to move their institutions 

from RPL to Fast Track Recognition and to find external collaborators and networks. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

The institution: 
□ understands Fast Track Recognition for open learning as an important strategy for open education. 
□ seeks to develop strategies around the fast track recognition of open learning. 
□ seeks to identify institutional partners to collaborate on the recognition of prior learning for open learners. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ makes use of technology for a first screening of portfolios to indicate their eligibility for open learning recognition. 
□ makes use of technology to support fast track recognition of open learning. 
□ uses technology to let open learners know that they can apply for recognition of open learning (e.g. social media, 

institutional website, online marketing tools). 

□ seeks to develop a strategy to provide transparent and comprehensive online information to both the learners and other 

51 

 
 
Quality 

Leadership 

Qualification 

Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

institutions in relation to its assessment mechanisms for open learning, certification and recognition. 

□ uses technology to verify the identity of the open learner. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ is committed to developing a speedy and reliable process for fast track open learning recognition. 
□ has an internal committee, which pre-verifies the reliability of third-party institutions' open learning assessments 

mechanisms and certification processes in order to establish collaboration on fast track recognition. 

□ seeks to develop a strategy to provide transparent and comprehensive online information to both the learners and other 

institutions in relation to its assessment mechanisms for open learning, certification and recognition. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ seeks to lead in open education by being at the forefront of open learning fast track recognition.  
□ identifies champions to lead the fast track open learning recognition dossier of the university. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

The institution: 
□ is committed to mapping its open education offerings against the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) and EQF 

(European Qualifications Framework) whenever possible (MOOCs, OCW, OER). 

□ has a strategy on how to offer qualifications via open education. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ uses technology to show the learners different qualification routes (e.g. online simulations). 
□ explores decentralised infrastructures (blockchain) for the issuing of certificates and other types of credentials. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ has mechanisms to check and validate its open learning qualification awards process. 
□ supports and encourages the branding of its own open education qualifications. 
□ seeks to work in collaboration with other institutions to grant qualifications for open learners. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution encourages its reputation building in open education by the granting of full qualifications. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

52 

 
 
 
 
Social Recognition 

Strategy 

Technology 

Quality 

Leadership 

The institution: 
□ seeks to offer non-formal recognition (e.g. badges) to its open education offerings when formal recognition is not 

appropriate or sought by the learner.  

□ encourages the acceptance of non-accredited certificates and badges as a form of knowledge demonstration whenever a 

formal certificate is not required. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution offers mechanisms to open learners to build and use a personalised learning environment showing their non-

formal learning ecosystem. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution seeks to maintain its reputation through the high quality of its non-formal education offerings and the 

assessment practices used in such cases. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution encourages its staff members to award badges and certificates on completion of open education offerings 

which do not match the criteria for formal recognition of learning outcomes. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
CORE DIMENSION 5 

COLLABORATION 
Definition 

Collaboration is about removing barriers to education by facilitating the exchange of practices and resources with a view to 
improving education. By collaborating via open educational practices, universities can move beyond the typical institutional 
collaboration patterns and engage individuals and communities to build a bridge between informal, non-formal and formal 
learning. It is an evolving practice which is shaped by individuals according to context, goals, resources and possibilities. It is 
therefore a concept that must be as dynamic as its practice. 

Rationale 

Collaboration in open education is about making the removal of barriers to education a reality by creating networks between 
individuals and institutions. Learners must be empowered to collaborate with each other and with the institution and community 
in order to produce knowledge, define their unique learning paths and achieve their goals. More specifically, it has to do with 
any practice or policy that promotes, for example: 

 
 
 

  agreements to support open educational practices. These can take place at different levels: between individuals 
(formally or informally), intra-institutionally, inter-institutionally, nationally at policy level or cross-border; 
the exchange of knowledge in OER format, free-of-charge content and courses, MOOCs or open access research; 
the co-development of OER and free-of-charge content; 
the co-development and exchange of open educational practices with respect to pedagogies, learning designs, 
technologies, guidelines, training, accessibility and usage of repositories; 
the empowerment of learners on their lifelong learning paths; 
the acceptance and recognition of open education certificates and credits by third party organisations; 
the co-development of open, innovative and digital learning environments; 

 
 
 
  practices that cultivate values of equality, non-discrimination and active citizenship; 
 

respect for socio-cultural differences. 

4 components 

Intra-institutional | Inter-institutional | National | Cross-border 

Intra-institutional collaboration: this type of collaboration takes place within an institution. It may involve different 
departments and faculties, students, staff members and even the wider community (alumni/ families of students/ local 
community). It aims to strengthen the open educational practices of the institution as a whole, promote knowledge sharing and 
management inside the organisation, develop an institutional policy on open education, identify champions, promote training 
and develop skills, promote the dissemination of an open education culture. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inter-institutional collaboration: this type of collaboration takes place between institutions, staff and learners from the 
same region, country, or network. It aims to strengthen the relationship between these organisations and individuals so that 
they can share all or any of the following:  knowledge, pedagogies, practices, open research, OER and free content. It also aims 
to develop and maintain technologies, prompt formal recognition of certificates and credits and aid reputation building. 

National/Regional collaboration: This type of collaboration refers to policies and recommendations on open education 
supported by National Ministries and regional governments. It may involve a given number of institutions working towards 
achieving a similar goal on open education, set and supported by these policies.  

Cross-border collaboration: This type of collaboration aims to foster the internationalisation of institutions via open 
education, by increasing their reach and access by students globally. Students in turn will benefit from the contact and sharing 
with other cultures. This type of collaboration can be set up by mutual agreements or consortia between universities in different 
countries or regions. It envisages the sharing of content, open research, practices, pedagogies and technologies. It aims to 
enable a welcoming environment for learners, teachers, managers and researchers to explore knowledge and practice from 
places other than their own.    It also attempts to overcome barriers established by national regulations or common practices 
with respect to recognition of learning achievements via open learning. 

Transversal Dimensions 

Descriptors 

Intra-institutional collaboration 
Strategy  

The institution: 
□ has a strategy on how to collaborate on open education at an institutional level within departments and faculties.  
□ encourages staff members from all departments and faculties to exchange and produce free content and OER, open 

Technology 

Quality  

access research, teaching materials, MOOCs, training in open education in collaboration. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ provides and maintains fully operational a repository and/or a learning management system in which staff members can 
easily share knowledge, OER, free content, open access research, teaching materials, and open educational practices. 

□ encourages staff members to use social media to exchange practices and resources.  
□ encourages departments and faculties to produce/develop/use open technologies in collaboration.  
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution has a cross-departmental peer-review process for open educational content (OER, free content). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Leadership  

□ Learners are empowered to decide about their studies and learning paths, to share knowledge and content, and to 

engage with staff members and learning networks. 

The institution: 
□ has identified open education champions in each department/ faculty. 
□ encourages staff members from all faculties/departments to participate in an open education committee and supports 

its ongoing existence. 

□ values the efforts of individual staff members to engage with open education by setting up a clear structure of rewards 

(e.g. career progression, training, time allocation, remuneration etc.). 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Interinstitutional collaboration 
Strategy 

The institution: 

□ has a strategy on collaboration with third party institutions to make open education sustainable to all parties involved. 
□ seeks to work in collaboration with other institutions to grant and recognise qualifications for open learners. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

The institution: 

□ shares technologies with other organisations (HEIs, industries, government etc.), which support collaboration in open 

educational practices. 

□ builds technologies that support open educational practices in collaboration with other organisations to reduce costs and 

enhance quality and maintenance procedures. 

Quality  

□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution shares a code of practice on quality with other organisations to mutually check and peer-review their open 

Leadership 

The institution: 

education outputs. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

□ shares policies with other organisations which enable collaboration in open education. 
□ collaborates with other HEIs and third party organisations to validate and recognise non-formal learning. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

National/Regional collaboration 
Strategy  

The institution: 
□ seeks to collaborate with its National Ministries to promote and support open education initiatives in the country. 
□ seeks to collaborate with local governments to promote and support open education initiatives regionally. 
□ has a strategy on open education which includes the collaboration with other institutions across the country, at different 

levels (e.g. pedagogy, content, technology, access). 

56 

 
 
Technology 

Quality  

Leadership 

□ seeks to work in collaboration with other institutions to grant and recognise qualifications for open learners. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution shares a central national repository with other institutions. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution shares a national code of practice with other organisations to control the quality of its open education 

outputs. 

□ Other. Please specify. 
The institution: 
□ actively participates in activities to foster opening up education at a national level.  
□ Other. Please specify. 

Cross-border collaboration 
Strategy  

The institution: 

□ has a strategy on open education which involves the collaboration with organisations abroad. 
□ approaches open education collaboration with institutions abroad as a way to internationalise its practices.  
□ seeks to develop fast-track routes for recognition of non-formal learning  from collaborating institutions abroad. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

The institution:  

Quality  

Leadership 

□ has agreements with organisations abroad in order to use their platforms for open education delivery. 
□ has agreements with organisations abroad to co-develop and maintain technologies for open education. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution follows international protocols on quality check f open education provision. 
□ Other. Please specify. 
□ The institution has a leading international role on open education collaboration. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CORE DIMENSION 6 

RESEARCH 
Definition  

Rationale 

Openness in research is about removing barriers to access to data and research outputs, and also about broadening participation in 
research. 

Openness in research implies a paradigm shift in the modus operandi of research and science which affects the entire scientific 
process. The underlying idea is to advance science as quickly and as well as possible by sharing and collaborating, rather than 
trying to publish first in order to secure intellectual property rights. International collaboration, for example, plays an increasingly 
important role both in improving the competitiveness of research and innovation systems and in fostering new knowledge 
production worldwide28. (Research and Innovation, European Commission, 2016) 

Researchers can gain from open science activities, both as project participants and as commentators on research ideas and 
progress, because extended networks provide a larger pool of expertise. Richer data sets are also available to them. (European 
Commission, background document – Public Consultation, Science 2.0: Science in Transition29, 2014).  

4 components 

Open Access | Open Research Collaboration | Open Data | Citizens' Science 

Open access is the practice of providing online access to scientific information that is free of charge to the end-user. 

Open Research collaboration is the large–scale, remote collaboration between scientists through the use of internet-based 
tools similar to open source software collaboration. It can take place regionally, nationally or internationally.  

Open data is data that can be used free of charge, reused and redistributed, subject only to the requirements of its open 
license. 

Citizens' science is a form of research collaboration in which professional scientists engage with members of the public, who 
then contribute to the research. 

28   Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World: A Vision for Europe (2016) DG Research and Innovation, European Commission. 
29   https://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/science-2.0/background.pdf 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Transversal Dimensions 

Strategy 

Open Access 
The institution:  

Descriptors 

□ has open access to research as a component of its open education strategy. 
□ has clear policies on open access publications. 
□ has policies that support and recognise academics who choose to publish in open access journals.  
□ has policies that support and recognise academics who choose to make their research available in open access research 

repositories. 
Researchers of the institution:  

□ are aware of the requirements and costs to them and the institution regarding the availability of open access research. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Open research 

The institution: 
□ has policies to promote and/or reward researchers and lecturers who embrace open research practices. 
□ makes sure that researchers and lecturers are aware of the requirements and costs to them and the institution regarding 

the open research programmes they support. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Open data 
The institution:  

□ has clear policies on open data. 
□ ensures that all academic/technical staff members are aware of the institutional policies on open data. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Citizens 'science 
The institution:  

□ has policies to support and encourage the participation of third parties ( e.g. companies, independent researchers) in the 

research process in various subject areas ( e.g. grants, collaboration agreements, access to research labs, unpaid 
fellowships). 

□ has policies to support and encourage academics to open their research process to the participation of third parties (e.g. 

grants, merit recognition).  

□ Other. Please specify. 

59 

 
 
 
 
Leadership 

Open access 

The institution:  

□ plays a leading national role in publishing open access research. 
□ has identified staff members who are willing to take the lead in creating an open access policy for the institution. 
□ encourages and values research published in open access journals. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Open research 

The institution:  

□ plays a leading role in creating programmes to involve local governments and local enterprises in the production of 

collaborative, open research. 

□ plays a leading role in open research collaboration with other higher education institutions, interinstitutionally and cross-

nationally. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Open data 

□ The institution has identified staff members who are willing to take the lead on creating an open data policy for the 

institution. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Citizens' science 

The institution  

□ plays a leading role in opening up its laboratories, archives and data centre to the community.  
□ seeks to engage the community in research processes (e.g. via crowdsourcing, open data, open collaboration). 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Quality 

Open Access 

□ The institution monitors the quality of its research output published in open access journals. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Open Research 
The institution:  

□ applies quality monitoring procedures for its open research processes and initiatives.  
□ rewards staff members who comply with quality monitoring measures for their open research initiatives. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Open data 

□ The institution ensures that the purpose for which the data is made available, the conditions of data collection, and all 

other details that one may need to reuse the data, are fully described. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Citizen's science 

□ The institution ensures that a quality monitoring mechanism for citizens' science is put in place. It should focus on five 

components: efficacy, impact, availability, accuracy and excellence30. 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Technology 

Open access 
The institution:  

□ has its own research repository with an open access policy. 
□ encourages the use of open standards for the production of content. 
□ rewards staff members who are part of collaboration groups on technologies for open educational practices (e.g. open 

source communities' of developers, think tanks). 

□ Other. Please specify. 

Open research collaboration 
The institution:  

□ allows the use of its technology for research (e.g. laboratories and equipment) by third parties. 
□ rewards staff members who develop new technologies which support open educational practices. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Open data 
The institution:  

□ seeks to be engaged with specific communities of practice which have /develop technologies for open data. 
□ has leading technology on open data (repositories, standards etc.). 
□ Other. Please specify. 

Citizen's science 

□ The institution makes use of social media to seek the participation of individuals in its research. 
□ Other. Please specify. 

30  These components are fully described in the Quality Dimension. 

61 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
STRATEGY  

TRANSVERSAL DIMENSION 7 

Definition  

Strategy in open education is the creation of a unique and valuable position on openness involving different sets of activities. 

Rationale 

Openness is a vital component of an institution's policy. It is integral to the institution’s mission and its relationship to and inter-
dependence with other aspects of the wider institutional policy should be clearly articulated. Including openness in an institution's 
education strategy can enhance and enrich the conceptual, operational and financial aspects of the educational offer. 

2 components 

Integrated Institutional Policy | Funding 
  Integrated institutional Policy 

Including  openness  within  an  institution's  education  strategy  can  enhance  and  enrich  the  conceptual,  operational  and 
financial aspects of the educational offer. The open education strategy and the institution's overall strategy should not be 
treated as separate, but instead it should form a unique educational strategy for the institution. This means that a current 
institutional  strategy  may  need  to  be  revised  to  operate  from  openness.  HEIs  activities  such  as  research,  teaching  and 
learning, and community services could all benefit from open practices. 

  Funding 

In making opening up education an integral part of the institution's mission and goals, HEIs will also need to have a 
strategy on how to make these activities financially sustainable throughout their duration and deliver, where appropriate, 
return on the investment. The latter can be direct (e.g. revenue by commercialising specific parts of the open education 
offer to specific types of audiences, such as assessment or credentials, or more registrations for paid-for courses) or 
indirect (e.g. increased reputation and enhanced internationalisation). HEIs can explore internal funding to be used to 
consolidate the institution's strategy which includes openness, and/or explore how external funding, from governments or 
other bodies, can help them achieve their opening-up education goals.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Strategy and its 
relationship with 
the other 
transversal 
dimensions 

  Technology: in open education, strategies and technology are interrelated and depend on each other in the institution’s 
action plan for an open education initiative.  Technologies can be selected according to the open education strategies the 
institution has chosen to adopt (e.g. open standards for software, use of social media to deliver content and engage with 
different audiences, open repositories for research outputs). 

  Quality - the quality31 (excellence) of the open education practice and resources of the institution are determined by a 

series of criteria set by the university and/or according to the recommendations of external bodies (e.g. ENQA, EADTU, etc.). 

  Leadership -  The promotion of open education at an institutional level is led by champions from the following groups: 

 
 
 

Institution's executives. 
Institution's staff members (lecturers, researchers, technicians, administrators). 
Institution's learners (registered learners and open learners). 

31   See the 'quality' transversal dimension for details. 

63 

 
 
 
                                           
TECHNOLOGY 
Definition  

Rationale 

TRANSVERSAL DIMENSION 8 

Technology in open education refers to technological infrastructures and software which facilitate opening up education in its 
different dimensions.  
Technology  is  a  necessary  part  of  open  education.  Technological  infrastructures  and  software,  either  open  or  closed,  work  as 
transversal enablers of the different dimensions.  
Technology use varies from one dimension to another and its different descriptors are incorporated in the template of the core 
dimensions. Thus, access can be enhanced by improving the infrastructures (devices and connexions) and by using virtual learning 
environments (VLE), MOOC and free/open online course platforms and supportive technologies. The openness of content (courses 
and  programmes)  can  be  enhanced  via technology, e.g.  by  using  institutional  repositories,  appropriate  standards  and  metadata. 
Pedagogy  can  benefit  from  the use  of  social  networks,  web  2.0  (or  plus),  OER  and  technologies  that allow  teachers  to monitor 
learners' behaviour and encourage and support personalised learning (e.g. via learning analytics).  
Technological solutions play an important role in validating the identity of people being assessed for the recognition of non-formal 
learning  (e.g.  biometrics  and  proctoring),  in  making  it  easier  to  scale  up  assessment  (test,  peer  to  peer  assessment  tools  and 
automated essay assessment) and in granting digital badges.  
Collaboration  can  also  be  enhanced  via  technology.  For  example,  social  media  can  be  used  to  disseminate  open  education 
initiatives  and  facilitate  communication  with  external  stakeholders  (companies,  local  community),  involving  them  in  the 
educational  process.  The design  of  common  digital  courses  and  infrastructures  for  open  education  (e.g.  repositories,  MOOC  and 
free/open online course platforms) is dependent upon technology and also the easy sharing of free content and OER.  
Technological  choices  have  a  direct  impact  on  how  open  education  is  configured.  Consequently,  institutions  should  consider 
technology when planning their strategies in order to align them and their priorities on open education with the ICT investment 
they make.   
The  degree  to  which  the  technology  used  by  an  institution  is  open  or  not  reflects  its  openness  culture.  Institutions  which  are 
committed  to  the  greatest  possible  level  of  openness  will  opt  for  open  standards  and  open  source  technologies  which  are 
interoperable with other platforms. They will also build or use platforms which allow learners to interact with one another, upload 
and share content, download, peer-review and modify existing content. 
Open education today is not always implemented by using open source software. However, its use has added value. Open source 
software  solutions  can  make  personalization  possible  by  adapting  previous  developments  of  technological  solutions  to  specific 
institutional  needs.    In  addition,  openness  in  technology  eliminates  barriers  to  inter-  and  intra-institutional  collaboration  in  the 
development of technological solutions for open education. 

64 

 
 
  
 
4 components 

Software and Platforms| Maintenance and development | Training | Vision and audience 

  Software and platforms – To a certain extent, the affordances of the technology set the boundaries of what can and cannot 
be done in open education. For example, the commitment to certain commercial (or non-commercial) platforms for the offer of 
MOOCs and free/open online courses may mean that the institution has to adhere to certain business models.  On the other 
hand, it makes it possible to reach global audiences more easily, due to the findability that these platforms provide. Another 
example is the tools that particular software may provide to learners and how customisable and interoperable it is.  All these 
factors shape the learning experience and the institution's engagement with open education in different ways. A decision on 
software and platforms must be an integral part of the strategy of the institution.  

  Maintenance and development – Content repositories, courses and programmes need to be within their lifecycle to be 

meaningful to the open learner and have a positive impact on the institution's reputation in open education. When designing a 
strategy for open education, periodic updating of the open education offer needs to be planned. In addition, open education 
provides possibilities for technology sharing and the development of new tools and systems, such as personalised learning 
environments.  

  Training – New technologies often require user training. It is essential that staff training in the use of technologies be 

included in the institution’s open education roadmap.   

  Institutional Vision and Audience- The choice of technology for open education is also largely dependent on the initiative’s 
target audience and the institution’s vision in relation to open education. For example, technologies adapted to mobile learning 
or content shared on platforms which allow remixing may appeal to different audiences (e.g. teachers and open learners on 
the go). The institution’s vision for open education must be related to its mission. The choice of technology must be aligned 
with the institution’s open education vision, because technology shapes audience appeal. 

  Strategy– the planned use of technology as an enabler is an essential part of the institution’s strategy or business model for 
open education. The institution may decide that its open education offer (MOOCs, free/open online courses, OER, research) will 
rely on the technologies it already uses, be they open source or not. The institution may also decide to build a technological 
plan for openness, using not only its existing technologies (open or closed) but also sharing, customising, or designing and 
building new technologies. Technological choices and strategies in open education are closely related to one another.  A 
strategic implementation plan can maximise the technology potential to create new operating mechanisms and business 
models. Technology in open education is used to enhance pedagogy, produce, modify and share content, assess learning to 
enable formal recognition, increase access (flexibility of time and space) and accessibility and support collaboration between 
different institutions. Within the scope of the core dimensions, there can be different foci on technology implementation, 
enabling a range of strategies and business models.  

65 

Technology and 
its relationship 
with the other 
transversal 
dimensions 

 
 
 
 
  Quality – Technological quality in open education has to do with the reliability of the system used and its readiness to 

support different types of users (e.g. versions, accessibility). It also has to do with the promotion of user-friendly platforms 
that focus on the user experience.  

  Leadership – Since technology is a key enabler for open education, institutions may decide to have it at the centre of their 

open education strategies by playing pioneering / leading roles in technology development for open education.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
QUALITY 
Definition  

Rationale 

TRANSVERSAL DIMENSION 9 

Quality in open education refers to the convergence of the 5 concepts of quality (efficacy, impact, availability, accuracy and 
excellence) with an institution's open education offer and opportunities.  

In relation to an institution's open education offer, the higher the confluence of these 5 concepts of quality (efficacy, impact, 
availability, accuracy and excellence) the more reliable and trustworthy this offer will be for open learners: 

  Efficacy: fitness for purpose of the object, concept being assessed. 
 

Impact: is a measure of the extent to which an object or concept proves effective. It is dependent on the nature of the 
object /concept itself, the context in which it is applied and the use to which it is put by the user. 

  Availability: this is a pre-condition for efficacy and impact to be achieved, and thus also forms part of the element of 

quality. In this sense, availability includes concepts such as transparency and ease-of-access. 

  Accuracy: is a measure of precision and absence of errors, of a particular process or object. 
  Excellence: it compares the quality of an object or concept to its peers, and to its quality-potential (e.g. the maximum 

theoretical quality potential it can reach) (Source: JRC IPTS report, 2014)32. 

The degree of quality of an open education offer/opportunity can be measured by different actors, such as the institution itself, its 
learners or the State. The latter measures the compliance with a given country's legislation and recommendations of the object 
being offered (e.g. a course, a certificate, a degree). It can also be measured against the standards of a competent body which can 
issue credentials, such as a quality assurance agency or an association/community recognised by its members.  The granularity in 
which quality is measured in open education may also vary, ranging from an institution's overall reputation to the quality of a 
particular offer such as an OER.  In general, quality standards in open education should seek to comply with the European 
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education33, which have been divided in three parts: internal quality 
assurance, external quality assurance and quality assurance agencies. The term quality assurance means all activities within the 
continuous improvement cycle (e.g. assurance and enhancement activities) (ESG, 2015)34  

32   Camilleri, A., Ehlers, U.D., Palowski, J. (2014) State of the Art Review of Quality Issues related to Open Educational Resources. JRC Scientific and 

Policy Reports, IPTS, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

33   http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf  
34   Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (2015), Brussels, Belgium. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Quality in open education also relates to the environment and conditions in which an open education culture is built in an 
institution. Staff members involved in producing and supporting OE often require time and deserve incentives. An institution which 
identifies these needs, recognises them as fair and acts responsibly towards them is respecting a fundamental principle of 
excellence which is the promotion of the best conditions for individuals to tap into their greatness. 

3 components 

Quality of open education offer | Quality of institutional support to staff |Quality of services to open learners 

  Quality of open education offer/opportunities refers to the degree of confluence of the 5 concepts of quality applied 
to content (OER and free-of-charge content), courses, programmes, teaching methods and technologies. It also refers to 
quality of metadata, transferability and adaptability of teaching and learning resources.  It is important that universities 
continuously improve their systems of production and service. 

  Quality of institutional support to staff is related to the existence of an open education policy at the institution, which 
caters for the allocation of appropriate time and remuneration to staff members (e.g. lecturers, researchers, librarians) to 
design, modify and use OER and when applicable, free content . It has also has to do with incentives and continuous 
professional development (CPD) opportunities.  

  Quality of services to open learners is related to the variety and excellence of the services provided to open learners, 
such as technologies, student support, tutoring, pathway guidance, issuing of certificates and recognition of non-formal 
learning. 

  Strategy –quality management approaches applied to the monitoring of the implementation of an institution's strategic 

plan for open education. 

  Technology – Reliability of the technology. The use of international standards for course material production and 

availability/sharing. The user-friendliness of web resources and learning environments for open learners.  

  Leadership – Leadership for quality is an important criterion in an open education strategy. Open education champions 

and the institution's executives must check the quality criterion against their main decisions and actions to ensure that the 
institution's reputation is being kept and enhanced. The goal is to provide the open learner with the best learning 
experience possible.  

Quality and its 
relationship with 
the other 
transversal 
dimensions 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSVERSAL DIMENSION 10 

LEADERSHIP 

Definition  

Rationale 

Leadership  in  open  education  is  the  promotion  of  sustainable  open  education  activities  and  initiatives  via  a 
transparent  approach  from  both  the  top-down  and  the  bottom-up.  Leadership  paves  the  way  to  creating  more 
openness by inspiring and empowering people.  

Leadership in open education goes beyond the creation of strategies decided at the executive level.  It is above all the 
identification of champions at all levels, who will take the lead in the different strands of open education in the institution. It is a 
transversal dimension because it supports open education practices at different levels: personal motivation, task organisation and 
outcomes management. Leadership in open education should promote open education take up across the university by a whole 
range of stakeholders, including learners. 

4 components 

Institution's stakeholders | Staff members | Learners | Community  

  Institution's stakeholders are members of the management team of a HE institution. The approval of an institution’s 

open education policy or guidelines/roadmap, for example, would be the responsibility of these individuals. The Institution’s 
executives have the power to support an open education culture and to decide on the best course of action to achieve 
desired goals.   Their actions should ideally be aligned with those of staff members. 

  Staff members can be advocates or champions of open education at the institutional level. They will design or put into 
practice the strategies planned. They should also be part of the decision-making process to enhance their sense of 
ownership of the OE strategy. They are key players for the success of the strategy. 

  Learners in open education take increasing responsibility for their own learning pathways. They are the leaders of their 
own learning processes and achievements. Learners can also be authors and co-authors of open educational material. 
They may share their experiences digitally and via the social web. They may support and assess each other's work via 
peer-to-peer activities. 

  The community related to the HE institution (e.g. family of learners, neighbours, institutional partners etc.) also benefit 
from the open educational practices of the institution. At the same time, the community can also collaborate and share 
their knowledge openly via the institution (e.g. collaboration with local businesses, events, employers and learners).  

69 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Leadership and its 
relationship with 
the other 
transversal 
dimensions 

  Strategy: Leadership for strategy and business models is measured against the involvement of different champions in the 

promotion of open education at an institutional level: 

 
 
 

Institution's executives, 
Institution's staff members (lecturers, researchers, technicians, administrators), 
Institution's learners (registered learners and open learners). 

  Technology: Since open education is highly dependent upon technology, it is important that the institution finds 

champions on the technological front. This will ensure not only the development of a strategy on (open) technologies for 
open education and support for it, but also commitment to designing and testing new technologies/uses for technology 
that can enhance the institution’s open education offer and the learner’s experience.  

  Quality: Leadership for quality has to do with the individual's commitment to quality control of the institution’s open 

education offer and with the various champions’ efforts across the institution to promote quality as a value. Overall, the 
quality of an institution’s open education offer affects its reliability and reputation, therefore leadership for quality is an 
essential part of an open education strategy.  

70 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX II – Strategic Planning Template for Opening up Education 

                                       Date: 

                           (optional worksheet be used alongside the 
OpenEdu framework) 

This template provides questions to think through while using the framework. The goal is 
to  achieve  a  relatively  short  document  [e.g.  10  pages]  which  is  an  easy  read  for  your 
target audience. Ideally, it should be designed to be an integral part of your institution's 
main  mission  and  education  strategy,  in  order  to  promote  openness  as  a  value  that  is 
intrinsic  to  the  institution’s  overall  organisation.  Complementary  documents  can  be 
designed whenever necessary and linked to it. Also, please consider making the strategic 
plan on opening up education available online on your university's website, visible to all 
interested parties (the public in general, open learners, staff members, etc.), and explain 
how it is embedded in the institution's overall mission. Transparency is part of the open 
education ethos and if the strategic plan has an appropriate open licence, it could even 
be reused/adapted by other institutions, which will reference your planning. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 1: Background 

1.1   HE institution information 

Name, full address, status (public, private, etc.) rector/president, main website, contact. 

1.1.2 Audience of the strategic plan  

You/your team may want to say something like:  

"This strategic plan on opening education for [higher education institution's name] has been developed 
by [XYZ group] in order to provide an institutional approach to [all faculties, staff members, external 
actors] on the development of specific initiatives for opening up education and their related policies. 
This planning is an official part (chapter, etc.) of the overall institutional planning and is aligned with 
the institution's mission.  

1.2  

Introduction  

It  is  useful  for  anyone  reading  your  strategic  plan  to  provide  some  background  information  on  the 
institution (size, main audience, private/publicly-funded, main achievements).  

In  this  section,  the  institution's  vision,  mission  and  values  can  be  explained.  Then,  the  institutional 
perspective  on  open  education  (what  it  is,  why  it  is  a  priority/not  a  priority  at  the  institution,  how  it 
fits/does not fit with the institution's mission statement.) 

Next, the current status of open education practices in the institution may also be presented, alongside 
a plan for non-formal learning recognition and incentives for staff. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 2: Planning 

2.1  

Institutional vision on open education 

This  is  a  short  statement,  carefully  constructed,  which  will  communicate  to  others  what  you  want  to 
achieve. 

2.1.1 Major goals 

In  this  section,  you  may  want  to  describe  how  open  education  will  be  dealt  with  in  your 
institution:  i.e.  what  the  main  goals,  the  rationale  and  timeframe  are.  You  may  choose  to 
distribute  a  number  of  these  planning  templates  to  appropriate  staff  members  in  order  to 
identify main goals and specific objectives in the institution. Alternatively, you may see value in 
creating working groups and have them address a specific set of goals and objectives –checking 
how they relate to the dimensions of open education of the framework. Finally, consider merging 
the documents into one single institutional strategic plan. 

2.1.2 Specific objectives on open education 

Here  you may  describe  specifically  how the major  goals  will  be  achieved. What  types  of  open 
education  initiatives  will  you  support/create/collaborate  with?  How  will  they  be  supported 
(staff/faculties,  funding,  external  collaborators)?  How  open  will  your  institution  be  about  open 
licenses, reuse and sharing policies, etc.? 

2.2   Dimensions of open education and rationale 

What are the dimensions in your planning and why? How do they interplay? Are you taking a progressive 
approach  (starting  with  fewer  dimensions  and  aiming  to  include  all  in  the  future)  or  not?  Why?  Which 
descriptors from each dimension of the framework will your institution support and how? 

2.2.1 Approach to recognition of open education 

This is an aspect that you may want to emphasise and make clear to all staff and open learners. 
Presenting  the  institutional  perspective  on  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  will  help  staff 
members  to  develop  appropriate  courses/programmes/projects.  It  will  help  open  learners  to 
understand the institution's position on recognition, enabling them to make informed decisions.  

2.2.1.1 Desirable traffic light model for open education offers 

You may wish to refer to OpenCred's traffic light model to guide your staff members and 
open  learners  on  the  types  of  recognition  of  non-formal  learning  provided  by  your 
institution.  The  traffic  light  model  is  a  visual  tool  that  can  be  displayed  on  courses, 
websites, etc., which can aid transparency in your recognition policies.  

2.3  

SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) 

You may wish to use some of the OpenEdu descriptors here, adapted as needed, to help you describe the 
strengths of your institution on open education (e.g. the institution is a strong player in online learning), 
weaknesses, opportunities and possible threats related to opening up education. A contingency plan may 
also be presented. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4   GANTT Chart 

This  is  an  important  part  of  your  strategic  plan  since  it  offers  a  trackable  visual  schedule  for  the 
achievement  of  goals  and  specific  objectives,  and  makes  it  possible  to  break  them  down  into  work 
packages.  

Section 3: OPENING UP EDUCATION COMMITTEE 

You may need to identify who the open education champions are/could be at the institution. This group 
will  be  assigned  tasks  and  accountability.  These  champions  can  also  be  learners.  Consider  how  they 
could  be  encouraged  to  feel  ownership  of  at  least  parts  of  the  strategic  plan.    This  will  make  them 
more  committed  and  they  will  achieve  better  results.  The  Leadership  dimension  of  the  OpenEdu 
framework may be helpful in designing this section of the strategic plan. 

Section 4: EVALUATION 

Your institution’s performance against all the goals and objectives set in the strategic planning should 
be rigorously evaluated. This will help to redefine goals whenever necessary and also in the design of a 
revised plan for a further time period. 

4.1  

Formative 

How often will the initial (formative) evaluation occur? Who is its audience? Which criteria will be used? 
What will you do with the information you gather from this formative evaluation? 

4.2  

Summative 

Against which criteria will the final (summative) evaluation occur? Who is its audience? To what extent 
have your annual reports and operational plan addressed the open education strategic plan? How can 
you  use  the  data  gathered  when  completing  the  summative  evaluation  to  inform  the  next  round  of 
strategic planning? Consider making the results of the evaluation available to all. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Free phone 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. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
F
-
N
A
-
2
7
9
3
8
-
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:10.2791/293408 

ISBN 978-92-79-58537-1