• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
C-SAP e-learning forum: Overview of Open Educational Resources project
 

C-SAP e-learning forum: Overview of Open Educational Resources project

on

  • 559 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
559
Views on SlideShare
545
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 14

http://cascadeoer2.pbworks.com 14

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Background – HEFCE OER initiative paper Sep 2008 3 strands to the pilot – institutional, individual and subject level Subject pilots will develop ‘appropriate consortia’ involving department, institutions, professional bodies, identifying materials around ‘commonly used core curricula’. Question to pose: what is an open educational resource?
  • A wide interpretation of resource … HEFCE doc states – ‘quality control part of institutional responsibility, informal benchmarking by peers encouraged.” As a pilot we anticipate a range of materials from the above list, perhaps others – will be guided by subject benchmarks etc but not a core curricula as such, loosely based around level 1 programmes.
  • Obvious queries – productivity, recruitment and marketing, assumption that common resources can be deployed across common curricula (an especial challenge for social sciences?) In HEFCE doc also states – “The proposal is not related to the e-university model in any way, from which the lessons have been learnt.” Interesting that M Oliver in keynote for C-SAP Jan 09 conference talks about repeated nature of educational technology cycles, that lessons are generally not heeded and re-inventions of technology continue at pace with re-thinking the nature of the university. HEFCE doc states blueprint – by 2013 the sector will be sharing materials openly and freely, based around subject consortia, with more effective transitions between formal and informal learning. Institutions will recognise the added value in terms of selection of materials, and will support clear policies around IPR. Academic staff will be confident in discovering, re-using and sharing materials. Learners will demand consistent high quality learning materials, and expect to see examples before applying to a course.
  • Range of subject focused projects Aims, goals, intentions – measures of success
  • Context from Good Intentions doc: Terminology, nature of sharing, business cases, problematic issues ie quality
  • Subject differences (but M Oliver caution about this in ELiSS), Kemp and Jones paper M Oliver tacit practice, Jan conf Professional identities (p16), (working with profess assoc – stakeholders) What else identified as important in Good Intentions: p. 5 quality, ease of re-use, dichotomy over ‘polished’ resources and increased complexity or specificity for re-use.
  • Other technologies / tools Intention to create a pedagogy toolkit for re-use But problems – mapping curricula, informed collective development of resources, the ‘lived curriculum’ (m oliver), differeent assessment practices etc
  • Overview of rationale, partners, organisation. Notion of 60 credits contribution. With other activity. Existing content, not new content. JORUMOpen – overview if possible
  • But – M Oliver again, Andy lane, what is the benefit of ‘stuff in repositories?’ Subject benchmarks, professional identities etc vs. core curricula – much freedom in social science, identified in rationale, but a challenge for the project. Rationale for pedagogic intention, re-use and dis-aggregation (awkward terms, part of problem with learning tech discourse) A need for learning design, structure, meaningful purpose, notion of the polished repertoire

C-SAP e-learning forum: Overview of Open Educational Resources project C-SAP e-learning forum: Overview of Open Educational Resources project Presentation Transcript

  • C-SAP OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES PROJECT E-learning Forum 8 th July 2010 Darren Marsh and Anna Gruszczynska, C-SAP
  • The background
    • HEFCE initiative, JISC / HEA key partners
    • Original budget of £25 million for development of open educational content - £5 million for pilot projects 2009 – 2010
    • 3 strands to the pilot phase:
      • Institutional
      • Individual
      • Subject
    • An OER II phase but reduction in scope
  • Open educational content is …
    • ‘ Teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an licence that permits their free use or re-purposing by others.’
      • Course materials
      • Reading lists
      • Student generated content
      • Images / multimedia
      • Learning objects
      • Online activities
      • Supporting materials from lectures and seminars
      • Etc …
  • The rationale for OER
    • Encouraging sharing of content between institutions, academics, and communities of practice
    • Development and uptake of new tools to enhance productivity
    • Universal sharing of material (reduce duplication)
    • Enhanced recognition and reward for teaching
    • Making better use of the existing investment in digital content
    • Raising profiles – individual, institutional
  • Subject Strands
    • 14 funded projects
    • Working with approx 90 HEIs as project partners across the subject centre projects
    • Aims for each project:
      • Release 360 credits or equivalent of educational material, from within subject disciplines
      • Explore processes, challenges, assumptions about sharing and re-use
      • Encourage longer term release of open resources
  • Why Share?
    • “ Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials”, Lou McGill et. al, December 2008
      • http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/
    • Critiques the ‘business case’ model which is often employed when discussing development of online / digital learning materials
    • “ No one model fits all … it is fair to say that most HEIs have not articulated the various sharing activities taking place, particularly those coming from a bottom-up approach.”
  • Disciplinary perspectives towards digital content and resource sharing
    • “ Subject discipline is an important factor affecting how academics share … in some subjects there are reported deficits in materials.”
    • “ Are teachers likely to exchange/share practice rather than materials? If we encourage sharing of learning designs, would sharing of learning materials follow-on?”
    • “ People won’t share things that are not easy or compelling for them to share.”
    • Good Intentions p.5-6
  • C-SAP Project: sector wide
    • Working with a number of subject professional bodies
    • Alignment of resources and practices for sharing around QAA Subject Benchmark statements
    • Wide dissemination across C-SAP networks, events, workshops
    • Develop a resource toolkit, offering a pedagogical framework
    • Articulate the benefits of open resources
  • C-SAP Project: Partners
    • 6 academic partners: 2 from Sociology, 2 from Politics, 1 from Anthropology and 1 from Criminology
    • Each contribute approx 60 credits or ‘equivalent’ of material
    • Loosely based around Introductory topics
    • Deposit into JORUM Open and other web 2.0 platforms for sharing
  • C-SAP OER Project: rationale
    • Most practice in HE production of teaching materials is at individual level
    • The ways in which they are now used in and out of the classroom are often unrecorded (relying on tacit understanding)
    • To re-use material effectively, such tacit understandings might be made open / revealed
    • There are however differing meanings and degrees of ‘openness’
  • Teaching materials are …
    • Localised
    • Context-bound
    • Located on institutional VLEs
    • Linked to assessment practices
    • Linked to learning outcomes
    • Encode ‘tacit’ understandings
    • Implied pedagogies / approaches
    • Varied in nature of ‘artefact’ (digital format)
  • Project process – exploring ‘tacitness’
    • Copyright and IPR
    • ‘ Ownership’ status
    • Module provenance and history
    • ‘ Normal’ review prior to open release
    • Relation of original programmes
    • Community of practice
    • Collaborative wiki workspace
    • Peer supported review exercises
    • ‘ Mapping’ of module outline and contents to facilitate re-use
    • Copyright audits of materials
    • Project toolkit - ‘mapping’ materials, ‘diagnostic’ editing
    • Source ‘content’ deposited in JORUM and other platforms
    • Module mappings in project website
  • Series of development activities
    • Encouraging reflection
    • Peer discussion
      • Local / global
      • Open / closed
    • Mapping the modules
    • Providing the context
    • Consider re-use
    • An iterative process
    • Re-working materials
    • Creative commons
    • Shared working space (pbworks wiki)
    • document repository
    • discussion
    • review
    • transformation
  • Case studies
    • Partners’ reflections on the process: before, during, after
    • Focused around one module - but reflect across the scope of the project
    • Video overview and module ‘map’ link
    • Extra supporting materials
  • Materials submitted: 6 partners, 4 subjects, 360 credits Partner name/ institution Modules released Credit weighting No. of discrete items (usually includes module handbook, lecture slides, assessment material etc.) Pam Lowe, Aston University [Sociology] Comparative sociology 10 10 Embodiment 10 10 Gender and society 10 11 Race and ethnicity 10 10 Sociology of health and illness 10 9 Sociology of reproduction 10 11 Angels Trias i Valls, Regent’s College (materials were produced during a previous role at Lampeter University) [Anthropology] Anthropological ideas 20 1 Exploring religions and cultures 20 27 Visual anthropology 20 25 Cathy Gormley-Heenan, University of Ulster [Politics] Government of UK and Ireland 20 13 Public policy 20 12 State crime 20 12 Jon Parker, Keele University [Politics] Mass media in America 15 17 Why politics matters 15 11 Politics of sustainability 15 24 British politics since 1945 15 13 Dave Harris, MARJON (Plymouth) [Sociology] Sociology of leisure 30 10 Introduction to research methods 30 11 Helen Jones, Manchester Metropolitan University [Criminology] International e-communication exchange 15 9 Learning and employability 15 7 Gender, crime and justice 15 15 Crime and violence 15 12
  • Some propositions for pedagogical frameworks
    • “ What is a pedagogical framework? The point is not to construct one ideal pedagogical framework; but neither are all possible frameworks equally satisfactory.”
    • Goodyear, P & Jones, C (2004) Pedagogical frameworks for DNER (Distributed National Electronic Resource)
  • Some propositions about a ‘framework’ for OER
    • a. courses are designed as 'sets' of modules (i.e. they have been modularised)
    • b. modules (in line with HE convention and practice) are aligned with learning outcomes, and a form of assessment
    • c. the contextualisation of modules involves intent that is often implicit / tacit / invisible - and constructing them to be shared requires this intent to be re-examined by a) the originator b) future user(s)
    • d. stripping away contextual info in modules in order that they might be re-used is problematic in that insufficient structure may remain for others to use
  • C-SAP OER Project Toolkit
    • OER creation tools
      • Module ‘Mapping’
      • Diagnose / Review
    • OER discovery tool
      • ‘ Generative’ search (keywords, subject, assessment)
  • C-SAP OER Project Toolkit - Mapping
    • Mapping for OER
      • Overview
      • Pedagogy
      • Subject benchmarks
      • Outcomes and assessment
      • Content
      • Comments
  • C-SAP OER Project Toolkit - Generate
    • Filter / search
      • ‘ Metatags’ field
      • Assessment types
      • Subject areas
    • Proof of concept
    • Potential for OER discovery based on multiple ‘needs’
  • How does a module ‘look’ in toolkit?
    • Overview Screen:
    • author
    • institution
    • programme
    • credit
    • description
    • meta-tags
    • (xml source – all potential metadata)
  • The toolkit preview mode
    • Fully html:
    • uses xml source
    • presents a ‘standardised’ view of the module (easy to embed in other websites)
    • shows all mapping sections
    • content items link directly into JOURM repository
  • Preview mode – LO’s and assessment
    • Making ‘tacit’ more visible:
    • presents the outcomes and assessment choices in mapping tool
    • shows how the user defined LO’s relate to assessment tasks
    • exposing pedagogical design for re-use
  • How does it look in JORUM? http://open.jorum.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/2785
    • Search by:
    • ‘ collections’ (not subjects)
    • author
    • keywords
    • Granularity – most material in JOURM single item
    • No extra space to expose tacit
  • What next after the pilot?
    • Expand use of beta toolkit
    • Collect further module mappings for OER
    • Explore situated re-purposing of pilot OER modules in other contexts
    • More engagement and feedback from students
    • Potential for OER addressing specific curriculum issues (i.e. research methods, first year provision)
    • Better understanding of users and needs:
      • groups (early career, professional development, how using)
      • types of OER (what most needed, most effective, granularity)
  • OER activity – your turn!
    • Think of an exemplar module that you teach or have taught. How would you begin to ‘describe’ and re-work that module as an ‘OER’ for:
      • an immediate colleague
      • a colleague from another school at your institution
      • a peer from your subject discipline in the UK
      • a peer from your subject discipline globally
    • Consider what might be required for:
      • ‘ technical’ re-working; copyright + ownership; moral / ethical issues; ‘openness’ and granularity (how much); getting feedback and review (formal/informal); quality; assistance.