 Okay, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Robert Schuer, Ben Janssen and Jan Bart de Friede. Some thoughts about sustainable OER. It's all about ownership to continue our theme on sustainability. Good morning. After me Robert will take over and then the last one, the last man standing is Jan Bart. The three of us are active in the field of OER for some time. Some months ago we sat together and asked the question, what about sustainability? I'm glad that the previous speakers have already tackled this problem. We will do that from a different angle, perhaps it's complementary. We start with, this is our Jennifer today. We start with giving a frame of reference, our departing from experience and theory. And then we come up with the question of ownership, a question, an issue that in our opinion has to be tackled too. And then we, Robert will dwell on this aspect of ownership and then Jan Bart will present some details, some details about projects longer enduring already in the Netherlands. So our frame of reference for the issues of sustainability and ownership consists of the following notions, the notions of David Wiley on sustainability, I will elaborate on that. OER is Public Goods also developed by David Wiley, OER is Common Pool Resources, it's an idea of Olsen, Professor Olsen and OER is Digital Comments. It is an idea elaborated by Schophausen in her latest PhD thesis for Gegean. Sustainability, we highlighted the elements we think are vital in discussing sustainability. It's about enduring, it's about accomplishing goals, what are we doing, for what and why and longevity beyond the phase of projects initialization. Here we are, OER in our opinion are Public Goods, non-excludable and non-rivalous. They are digital comments, meaning they are managed and maintained by community of users and producers and they are Common Pool Resources, meaning goods that typically possess a natural or engineered, and I stress the term engineered, system of non-excludable resources. They are communities of users and producers involved, it is a process of commenting. And then we start with the elaboration of the question of ownership, Robert. Thank you, Ben. Well the question of ownership, you have collections of open educational resources. And as using the terms from the previous slides, the goal about sustainable is this ongoing ability, this ongoing ability that after the project has ended, the initial project that you sustain, realizing this enduring value, so value continues, not only for instance the OERs you have created during the project phase. And ownership is taking this responsibility to create and sustain this enduring value. So, enter, okay, no, oh, this enter. Well about sustaining value, the term business models has already been mentioned in a latest study in 2020, Trilly and others have done a literature review about what business models are currently used in actual OER projects. And they came up with this complete, with this list of models, and we will focus on the last one named here, and those are those community-based model, and there are some examples they use in their paper to illustrate this model. And actually, this last model, community-based model, it is about ownership. It beats finance in it, a feeling of ownership, people taking responsibility to and feeling this ownership of educational resources is much, maybe much more important than the finance part. We don't want to say that financing is not important, far from this, but this ownership is much more important. And I think Jan Bart will illustrate that in a case he will present. And what is this community-based model? We have here a couple of characteristics of it. So it is the members of the community, they jointly take the responsibility for production and maintenance. It is the variations, there is a variation that you also give students a part in it, and then you come to the co-creation part, as in the first example in the first lecture in this session was presented, which we call under the umbrella of open pedagogy, the student connectedness, and there is also non-financial incentives needed. And those non-financial incentives can be very broad, it can be also very personal, and so, for instance, recognition is needed. The desire to see one's own material improve effectively. I create a resource, I put it in a pool of resources, but it has to be maintained and it should have been maintained effectively and efficiently, and that for me could be the reason to share my resource, because I don't have the time to do that. And a sustainable community, we use this model from Bucher and Raub, where there actually are two dimensions to consider. You have the benefit level that could be at individual or at organizational level, and you could have the amount of managerial support. And for sustainability of community, it is important to be on the right side. And it could be that during the project, you start as an incubator, this business opportunity network, a lot of those initial OER projects have test characteristics. We want to experiment with OERs, but during this project it is important to shift to a best practice network, so that this sharing of knowledge that actually is done in using or reusing and sharing OER is becoming a sustained institutionalized and then get the attention of management. Because then this, well, then you get this attention, and this will give you the managerial support, which is needed to sustain, to get the right conditions to, and so it is the business opportunity network and the best practice network. Summarize, central here is ownership, and all the things we have mentioned is put in this scheme. It is needed for the sustainable OER initiative, a professional community takes the ownership and is a type of business model, and there are conditions needed, and some of those conditions are put in this, so for instance recognition is needed, the experiencing value, it should be fairly experiencing, both for management and both for the participant to take this ownership. And Jan Bart will illustrate this with a case. So all that remains is just putting all this into practice, which is obviously really easy. I do have enough time to elaborate, so that's good. So I work for Kennesnet, which is the equivalent of SERF for primary, vocational, and secondary education, and we have a product called Wikivice, which basically is a platform for searching, sharing, and creating online content educational resources. We have at this point more than 150,000 creations on our online platform, the creation platform, and the rule is everything has to be shared CC by SCC by SA. We have about 6 million visits per year directly to our platform, but because everything can be exported in EPOP, PDF, IMS, QTI, whatever, there's a lot of local copies going around the learning environments, which are much closer to the students, and therefore can present the content in better ways. So we're still trying to uncover one of our key success factors of how much of that content is played elsewhere. And we have our search engine is also a central search engine, which runs the same backend, which is used for edu sources for the SERF. So we have one large repository, referratory with 80 plus collections, and everything is open licensed and available, including the software, but not really recommended to install it yourself. Now that the promo talk is done, giving you a little bit of context, how do we apply these concepts of ownership to what we do at 3QI? We've been doing this for almost 12 years. For example, we facilitate communities. And the first thing we do is we talk to these communities about, what is your definition of quality? Because every educator has their own definition of quality. One of the main reasons to start a community is to actually say, well, we think there's something missing in the current landscapes. We want to create something new. So we asked them to define what is to you is a pearl, a diamond, what to use a lemon, what is your quality of your definition of quality? Step two, really dumb, really simple, create a homepage. Put photographs on there, allow people to see, this is my place. This is my place where my peers and me to get our work on our collection. That homepage links directly to a search subset, which is all the stuff that this community has created or has curated. We make it possible to apply that quality definition with a certification system. It sounds very formal, but it's actually, it says recommended by. That means any learning material by any community can be recommended or certified by another community saying, okay, this is also a mandatory definition. So if you go into our homepage, into our subset, you'll find our set of materials which we have either created ourselves, discovered ourselves, or certified ourselves. And it's all about them. Another simple example is we recognize creators and we recognize owners. There's two different things because we also have, of course, the collection owners which are encouraged to share their materials. But we would also like to recognize the creators. A really simple example, I'm not sure how many of you still have contacts with primary schools, but in Netherlands primary schools have what we call a teacher room. And a teacher room is where the teachers hang out. This has got to be in every culture room. And complain about the students, or sorry. They talk about the greatest achievement of their students. Sorry, misspoke there. And what we do, we try to identify teachers who've created something nice. We call their, the director of their school, the principal. And we tell them, we want to send a cake to that teacher room. And the director goes, why? And I'm like, well, they made a really nice thing and we want everyone to recognize them. We want to sort of spotlight that. Almost every time that principal comes back and says, oh, we're really in for this. Please send the cake on that date and I will be sure to announce that we got the cake and I'll give a little speech. And within that school, that person all of a sudden is recognized. Wow, everybody thinks other colleagues will be like, did we get cake thanks to you? It's such a dumb example, but it really highlights them and it really puts them in the spotlight and they recognize their work. These are all small things. We have thousands of these examples, I think, across the world. But we should be really practicing or exchanging these ideas as well. Another thing is we try to separate the metadata from the creation of the content itself. If you write content, it usually has a specific learning goal. But if another person looks at it, it says, yeah, but you're really, this explanation about volcanoes is also applicable to this other audience for this other goal. I can add a second record, we call that metadata plus, meta plus. We can add a record making it part of my collection and making it findable under the terms which my community will recognize. So these are all small examples of ways in which we feel that we want to create that ownership of not just the learning materials themselves, but also the metadata, but also all the aspects which go around that ownership which gives them credit or which promote their ownership of the entire concept. A good example finally is, most of you have probably seen something called Wikipedia. It has an article which is written by a lot of different people. And all these people take credit and okay, I feel partially responsible for this article. In education, in the Netherlands at least, it's slightly different. I would like to have my own lesson. So every lesson plan that's available, every OER that's available in VQIs, you can press the copy button, you'll immediately get your own copy. You can adjust it, you can fill ownership. With regards to the earlier speakers, you can actually say it's a regenerative process because I take something that is 80% correct from my context. I adjust it, move on with it. And the next person can even copy that and move on with it. And we're thinking of ways to make those changes available back to the original author. Like, other people have changed your OER and have changed this. You might want to adopt those changes as well. You can also subscribe to changes from the original author and say okay, changes are made by the original author. I can either adopt those or I can ignore those. And those are all things like, this is my material, I need to teach with this, so therefore I need to fill ownership with this. Enough time for questions even. Wow. Thank you. Yeah, I have a question for Jan Bart. I think it's great that you're sending cakes to schools to reward teachers. But isn't it essentially a problem that you as a platform need to send cakes and essentially tell the schools that their teachers are doing great work, right? So how in the long run do you feel that schools can take ownership of rewarding the creators and owners within their schools? I think it's an example of the dream of if you build it, they will come. I think we've all dealt with this. You build a platform, you hope people will use it. And then you have a marketing problem because they either don't know about it or they think it's too hard or whatever. So it's just a marketing issue which we're trying to overcome on the short term by these kind of incentives. But in the long term, we can already see a lot of schools banding together saying, oh, what we want to do is pull our resources and make complete learning lines for a whole year or whatever. And we'll invest teacher time because then it moves out of the sort of amateur circus to everyone, not being directly about the amateurs. But if you have one person within the school and he managed to spread that effect and a lot more people get infected by the bug and say, oh, I want to do this and they want to sort of curate a collection, that's the point where you can start doing things like sending cakes or whatever. But it really is a marketing question. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.