A preliminary Exploration of Operating Models of Second Cycle/Research Led Open Education Involving Industry Collaboration

  • 1 Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden


Scientists from five Swedish universities were interviewed about open second cycle education. Research groups and scientists collaborate closely with industry, and the selection of scientists for the study was made in relation to an interest in developing technology-enhanced open education, indicated by applications for funding from the Knowledge Foundation 2013. The study is founded on Conole’s (2012) seven organizational purposes for open education, Coursera’s eight models (Daniel, 2012), and Clarke’s (2013) four strategies for open education, and raises the question whether open education and MOOCs might be a way to reinforce research collaborations and research environments. The researchers displayed a positive attitude towards expanding the technology-enhanced learning and openness, and foresee few problems with openness when industry participates in teaching. Nonetheless, the scientists’ operating models and strategies for developing technology-enhanced learning and open education, are vague. Conclusively: although the interest is obvious, in order to succeed with technology-enhanced open education and strengthening the research groups, the variables for purposes, operating models, strategies, pedagogic models, and obstacles need to be calibrated and made more deliberated, preferably in collaboration between the scientists and industry.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Bokor, J. (2012). University of the Future. Ernst & Young. Available online at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University _of_the_future_2012.pdf

  • 2. Broman, G. and Östholm, S. (1997). MathCAD in teaching rotor and structural dynamics. In International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(6), (pp. 426-432).

  • 3. Bull, D.D. (2012). From Ripple to Tsunami: The Possible Impact of MOOCs on Higher Education. In DE Quarterly, Spring 12, 2012. Available online at http://eprints.usq.edu.au/22388/1/DEQuarterly_Spring_2012_Edition_No_12.pdf

  • 4. Carroll, M. W. (2013). Creative Commons and the Openness of Open Access. In New England Journal of Medicine, 368(9), (pp. 789-791).

  • 5. Chesler, N.C.; Arastoopour, G.; D’Angelo, C.M.; Bagley, E.A. and Shaffer, D.W. (2013). Design of a Professional Practice Simulator for Educating and Motivating First-Year Engineering Students. In Advances in Engineering Education, 3(1), (pp 1-29). Available online at http://edgaps.org/gaps/wp-content/uploads/aee-vol03-issue03-01.pdf

  • 6. Clarke, T. (2013). The Advance of the MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses): The Impending Globalisation of Business Education? In Education + Training, 55(4/5), (pp. 403-413).

  • 7. Conole, G. (2012). Designing for Learning in an Open World. Springer

  • 8. Daniel. J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Available online at http://sirjohn.ca/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/120925MOOCspaper2.pdf

  • 9. Farin, I. (2013). MOOCS and the future of higher education. In INTED2013 Proceedings, (pp. 5590-5596).

  • 10. Hattie, J. and Marsh, H.W. (2004). One journey to unravel the relationship between research and teaching. In Research and teaching: Closing the divide? An International Colloquium, (pp. 18-19).

  • 11. Hill, P. (2012). Four Barriers that MOOCs must overcome to build a sustainable model. In e- Literate. Available online at http://mfeldstein.com/four-barriers-that-moocs-must-overcometo- become-sustainable-model/

  • 12. Karsenti, T. (2013). The MOOC. What the research says. In International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10(2), (pp. 23-37).

  • 13. Kelly, A.P. and Hess, F.M. (2013). Beyond retrofitting: Innovation in higher education. Available online at http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/Beyond%20Retrofitting-Innovation%20in%20Higher%20Ed%20%28Kelly-Hess,%20June%202013%29.pdf

  • 14. Maassen, P. and Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. In Higher Education, 61(6), (pp 757-769).

  • 15. Norton, A.; Sonnemann, J. and McGannon, C. (2013). The online evolution: when technology meets tradition in higher education. Available online at http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/ed9a3429/186_online_higher_education.pdf

  • 16. Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). In Open Praxis, 5(1), (pp 67-73).

  • 17. Rubin, B. (2013). University Business Models and Online Practices: A Third Way. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1).

  • 18. Siemens, G. (2012a). MOOCs are really a platform. In ELEARNSPACE. Available online at http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/

  • 19. Siemens, G. (2012b). What is the theory that underpins our MOOCs? In ELEARNSPACE. Available online at http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-thatunderpins-our-moocs/

  • 20. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education. JISC CETIS. Available online at http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667


Journal + Issues