Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sh Sue Tr Policy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Sh Sue Tr Policy


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Supporting Repository Development with Policies : Considering different approaches for a range of purposes Sarah Hayes, Aston University [email_address]
  • 2. Worcester Research and Publications (Eprints) CoRE (Software from City College, Coventry) The Developing Repositories at Worcester Project (DRaW) planned to embed repository use and provide an integrated repository service for staff
  • 3.
    • This talk will discuss:-
    • Policies at Worcester for the DRaW Project
    • Clear brief for Eprints Research Repository (WRaP)
    • Approach for our content repository for learning and teaching materials (CoRE and other options)
    • Policies on embedding support for both
    • Some recommendations when planning policies for learning and teaching materials repositories
    • Open access? Well maybe…Aston developments
  • 4. What were our policies at Worcester?
    • Initially, a plan of action, to guide decisions, but not a strict statement of procedure
    • Firmed up policies towards end of the DRaW Project with regard to our research repository (WRaP)
    • Considered a wide range of content types
    • Awareness of the need to design appropriate repository systems for different needs
    • Aware of need to embed policies for support
  • 5. Policies for our Eprints Research Repository (WRaP)
    • Visited staff and uploaded papers, prior to official launch
    • No initial mandate, but good support from senior staff
    • Research papers, published articles, no Powerpoints alone
    • Emphasis on showcase, but to reflect our institutional outputs
    • PhDs and MScs, no undergraduate materials, visiting lectures
    • Linked with Graduate school, RAE, conference papers
    • Deposit/take down policies towards end of project
    • Google analytics to demonstrate good uptake
    • Staff generally happy to upload and pleased with system
  • 6. Policies for content repository for learning and teaching materials (CoRE)
    • Staff only access, students can’t upload
    • Due to poor uptake, our policy of reviewing of metadata was abandoned
    • Staff encouraged to submit materials to collections
      • E.g. course handbooks, exam papers, dissertations
      • Also video and audio files such as recorded lectures
    • Staff given options to choose who they would like to share with, if anyone
  • 7. Changing our repository functionality Staff can now choose the individuals they wish to allow access to their resources
  • 8. “ Using Repositories for Learning and Teaching: Can we find a recipe for success?” Diglis Hotel, May 2008
  • 9. Success of online repositories for research publications Universities use similar systems to store and access teaching materials Tutors reluctant to use such systems How might policies need to change? Difference between material created by lecturers and ‘collections’ of materials Collections stored separately – using a traditional repositories approach? Easy transfer or link between material in the VLE and repository Minimal metadata for lecturer's own material and adopt a Web 2.0 style? A published paper Work in progress?
  • 10. Learning Box, developed by Faroes Project
  • 11. Some recommendations when planning policies for learning and teaching repositories
    • Enable a range of places to share, no one model fits all
    • Allow for many different types of materials and outputs
    • Apply restrictions, where necessary, copyright/IPR, sensitive materials
    • Embrace the open resources initiative, if appropriate
    • The use of tags, rather than metadata can help
    • Development of Web 2.0 style repositories, rather than conventionally structured ones
    • Links to virtual learning environments
    • Conventional repositories, for collections?
    • Embed processes for the management, sharing and re-use of learning materials and the support of repositories within universities.
  • 12. “ Repository Embedding Day” (RED) Our policy event to embed support Diglis Hotel, October 2008 Whoduzit? Repository roles and tasks Tutor support Metadata Advocacy System updates Repositories Web page
  • 13. More work needed
    • To develop language and terminology that can be understood by all users
    • To understand where there is overlap and commonalities as well as differences in repository use
    • On institutional policies for the retention of learning resources and copyright clarification
    • On institutional recognition of the resources that teaching staff produce
    • On optimising the benefits of re-use
  • 14. Open access? Well maybe…Aston activities
    • Aston have Equella – flexibility being investigated
    • JISC bid for Open Educational Resources call
    • Collaboration with Subject Centres
    • Looking to explore a range of solutions
    • Explore cultural changes needed to make progress
    • And copyright issues to be addressed
    • Feedback findings to JISC
    • Thank you for listening…any questions?