Open Source Software in Higher Education: Myth

or Illusion?

Dr. Shahron Williams van RooijDatatel, Inc./

George Mason UniversityJune 6, 2007

Innovations in e-Learning Symposium

Java Source Code for “Welcome to My Presentation”

class Welcome{

Welcome(){

System.out.println (“Welcome to My Presentation”);}

public static void main (String [] args){

new Welcome ();}

}

Open Source is Not New

Pre-1980

Source code sharing the norm in university-based research communities

1984Richard Stallman (MIT) forms the Free Software Foundation in response to loss ofDEC source code

1999Debian GNU/Linux distributionPolicy document

2001

• Publication of The Cathedral and the Bazaar

•Open Source Initiative (OSI) established1991

LinusTorvaldsinvents Linux

Thousands of Open Source Products/Projects

So, What Does This Have to Do with e-Learning?

Higher Education Flirts with OSS!

Technology

Social Movement Theory

Software Development Methodology

Security and Risk Management

Software Adoption Lifecycles

Business Models and the Law

Teaching/Learning

AdministrationInfrastructure

State FundingPressures

Vendor Mergers/Acquisitions

Software LicenseFee Increases

Teaching/Learning

Course/Learning Management

System Limitations

Sound Pedagogy

Faculty/Students

Open Source

Higher Education Environment

Where’s the Data?

Pedagogical advantagesFinancial and human

costs Federal regulatory compliance

Literature GapsEngineering literature focuses on the technologist-developerEducation literature has not yet addressed open source in depthOpportunity for in-depth, scholarly exploration of the gap between technologist and non-technical academic

Research Purpose and Questions

OSS for enterprise-wide efficiencies, integrated learning environment

OSS awareness, attitudes, adoptionintent by size andCarnegie classification

Processes/ procedures for OSS deployment, maintenance

Test of onshore, outsourcedOSS services concept

1. % institutions aware2. OSS adoption for teaching/

learning in next 18-24 mos.3. % institutions planning

OSS/SIS integration4. OSS replacing or enhancing

vendor systems5. Approaches, processes,

procedures for regulatory compliance, security

6. Characteristics differentiating OSS from commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software

7. Interest in purchasing concept-OSS services and at what price

Research Method

QUAN qual

ResearchQuestions

1. Awareness2. Adoption/deployment3. Integration with SIS4. Replacement of/

enhancement toVendor Systems

5. Regulatory, securityprocedures in place

Data Collection

Method

Hosted Web SurveyQuestionnaire

Data Numeric Scores

Analysis Statistical AnalysisVia SPSS

Follow-up

6. Perceptions of Open Sourcevs. CommercialSoftware

7. Reactions toConcept Service

Open-endedInterview

Text from TranscribedInterviews

Manual and MachineCoding of Text toIdentify Themes

N=772 n=20

Findings

Carnegie classification as key differentiatorDifferent top-of-mind drivers for CAOs and CIOs:

CIOs: Economic, operational efficienciesCAOs: Pedagogical considerations, but .. efficiencies when probed

Findings (cont’d)

Integration behind license fee savings as primary driverNo clear commitment to replacing vendor systemsLittle progress on formal policies/procedures for OS regulatory compliance, securityIT staff knowledge base as risk mitigation thresholdCautious receptivity to outsourced services

Benefits Risks

OSS vs. COTS: Differentiators

Conclusions/Implications

Closing the Carnegie classification gapCIO-CAO PartnershipSharing Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) modelsCommercial services as ticket to entry

Widening the Carnegie classification gap?

Contact Info

E-mail: swilliae@gmu.eduCell: (703) 489 – 7698Article on OSS:

Williams van Rooij, S. (2007). Perceptions of Open Source versus commercial software: Is higher education still on the fence? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4).