Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
RIDE 2011: OER workshop slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

RIDE 2011: OER workshop slides

560
views

Published on

Slides from Open Educational Resources workshop at Research in Distance Education 2011 conference, held on 26 October 2011. The workshop was conducted by Dr Stylianos Hatzipanagos (King’s College …

Slides from Open Educational Resources workshop at Research in Distance Education 2011 conference, held on 26 October 2011. The workshop was conducted by Dr Stylianos Hatzipanagos (King’s College London),
Dr Steve Warburton (University of London International Programme) and Dr Jane Secker (London School of Economics). More details can be found at www.cde.london.ac.uk.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
560
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • introduction
  • Say hello to Jane! Nancy on maternity leave and Ann-Marie taking over. Came out of chatting about Carillo with Jane.
  • Developing Educators Learning and Information Literacy for Accreditation Most HE institutions run some kind of PGCert and there is a place for OERs within them, as they use reasonably generic material and sharing material would save duplicated effort. DELILA aims to provide materials for this purpose using training material from LSE and the University of Birmingham. The effect of this will be a better informed and skilled teaching community that in turn will pass on knowledge and skills to HE students. We know that other countries are further ahead with this than us, for example ANTS (Animated Tutorial Sharing) and we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel but we want to see what works best in the UK and this is one way of sharing material. Why UoB and LSE – similar enough to work well together but different enough to highlight best practice etc - Compare LSE and Bham – at LSE the Teaching and Learning Centre run the PGCert, it contains 5 modules – 3 modules are needed for Associate level and 5 modules are required for Fellowship of HEA. At Bham, the Centre for Learning and Academic Development run the PGCert, there are 2 associate modules that make 60 credits overall – 20 credits are required for Associate and the full 60 are required for Fellow of HEA.
  • What is UKPSF Am doing a PGCert – experience Who in audience knows about UKPSF? Explain what it is – standard used for HEA accredited courses have to meet OER best practice – CORRE framework. Created as part of the OTTER ( Open, Transferable and Technology-enabled Educational Resources ) project at Leicester University Futurelab DL framework – Jane discovered as LSE use DL more than UoB currently. Not as comprehensive at the 7 pillars but very useful nonethless. We concluded that the UKPSF is underpinned with IL and DL but its not explicit - they are reviewing it to hopefully make it more so!
  • Work packages 1-8, introduce briefly. Up to WP5, highlight that reports for each WPs are going on blog – outputs page.
  • Learning curve as we have never converted OERs – OTTER website very useful. Also quite time consuming, eg trying to find widely accessible technologies IPR issues – most content had some 3rd party content, usually screenshots of proprietary databases. JISC has provided some guidance of copyright clearance of OERs. Contact legal advisors to ensure openness in line with Institutional policy. UoB people involved at this stage – Legislation Manager in LS, Director of Library Services, Director of Academic Services and PVC for Education. Verbal agreement has been given to make the materials in DELILA openly available via our IR and OpenJorum. Project has opened up further debate with new PVCs for Research and Education around IPR Review content using relevant parts of CORRE framework - Use audit spreadsheet to identify content needing adaptation and to what extent. CORRE (Content, re-use and Re-Purposing, Evidence and Openness) framework was developed by an OER Phase 1 project OTTER – provides an overview of stages to go through when converting content into open content. Lso seeks to address pedagogical, legal, technical, institutional and socio-cultural aspects of converting material to OERs. 4 stages of process: Content – materials gathered, credit weight recorded and assessed (WP 1 and 2) Openness – legal, pedagogic and technical aspects of process, IPR clearance Re-use/Re-purpose – validation process where material achieves actual OER status Evidence – assess the value and usefulness of an OER by tracking its use. Building evidence gathering process – people who reuse DELILA material include further information about how they themselves are using them. Stage 2 of CORRE framework: Rights clearance – copyright, IPR and licensing Transformation for usability – decoupling, scaffolding, meshing, sequencing, editing Formatting for accessibility – conversion, standardisation, metadata, pedagogical wrap around Third party content – screenshots most common, usually third party content; logos from institutions were cleared for use; used a 1-4 scale for reusability with 1 being material with no external content and with institutional permission to 4 being material made entirely of external content and having no institutional permission. Dealing with screenshots – mostly illustrative rather than pedagogically necessary so can easily be removed and a placeholder inserted – easier than contacting the publisher for permission to use the screenshots of their databases. Placeholder would explain what was previously there allowing the person who reuses the resources to add their won, more meaningful, screenshot in place. Add CC information to document property where possible (do this using Microsoft Research which allows a Creative Commons link. Check accessibility (add heading levels etc – recommend this is added to the creation workflow), add metadata including rights info, author, date of creation, keywords etc. convert Word to any other formats for re-use eg Open office Word etc. Metadata - HEA to provide tags which can be used for each section of the UKPSF so if looking for material for a specific part of UKPSF can search by tag and find appropriate material. Embedding metadata using file properties and CC licence.
  • Deposit work flows from JorumOpen, Birmingham and LSE will be identified and used by team members to deposit material in repositories Applications such as SWORD – a small working group which is part of the JISC Digital Repositories Programme - will be investigated by repository staff at both institutions and a briefing written to indicate how these time saving processes are applicable to project content. If SWORD or harvesting is to be used, repository staff to implement use for direct upload from local repositories to JorumOpen If no direct depositing can be done, project team to deposit content in JorumOpen. If everyone can agree on tags and metadata then IL stuff would be easily findable in Jorum. Would encourage people to use our tags which are based on S7P (what are they?) Easier to find if we’re all using the same language.
  • Have permission to add OERs to ur repository for this project but Uni owns rights generally and we have no clear view of sharing these types of resources CC licences – we agreed to use 3.0 but plug-in for automatic integration into word/PPT automatically attributes 2.5 Moving forward – Shadow DELILA, UoB planning to re-use some of LSE’s DL material
  • Found material all over the place – recommend a single place where all IL and DR is kept (IR?) Would recommend making OER compatibility part of authors’ workflow If you’re planning on releasing material as OERs then keep the audit process and documentation in mind as a standard procedure to record teaching material creation. Ask team members to submit their best training for OER conversion to spread the workload
  • Transcript

    • 1. Open Educational Resources: opportunities and challenges? Dr Jane Secker, LSE, Dr Steven Warburton, University of London, Dr Stylianos Hatzipanagos, Kings College London                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License .
    • 2. What are OERs?
      • Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that are freely available online for everyone to use, whether you are an instructor, student or self-learner. Examples of OER include: full courses, course modules, syllabi, lectures, homework assignments, quizzes, lab and classroom activities, pedagogical materials, games, simulations, and many more resources contained in digital media collections from around the world.
        • JISC OER Toolkit
    • 3. Notable OER initiatives
      • MIT’s Open Courseware initiative
      • Open University’s OpenLearn
      • JISC have funded 3 phases of projects in this area
      • Jorum is the national repository for teaching and learning materials (many are OERs)
    • 4. DELILA project overview
      • JISC/HEA funded project in OER Phase II programme
      • Part of the OMAC strand (open materials for accredited courses)
      • Project partners: LSE, University of Birmingham, CILIP CSG-Information Literacy Group
      • Paired with CPD4HE Project based at UCL
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 5. DELILA Aims and objectives
      • To provide a model of embedded digital and information literacy support into teacher training at higher education level;
      • To release a small sample of open educational resources to support embedding digital and information literacy education into institutional teacher training courses accredited by the HEA including PGCerts and other CPD courses;
      • To customise local repositories to provide access to these resources.
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 6. Why, why, why DELILA?
      • Why LSE, Birmingham and IL Group?
      • Educational developers could make use of generic Information and Digital Literacy material in PGCerts
      • Many librarians have already created valuable resources
      • Sharing …
        • helps model best practice
        • saves time and money
        • is good for your institution and your reputation
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 7. Relevant frameworks and Standards that we used
      • SCONUL 7 pillars of information literacy and CILIP definition of IL – to identify materials
      • FutureLab Digital Literacy framework (and definition) – to identify materials
      • UKPSF (UK Professional Standards framework) – to accredit materials for PGCert
      • CORRE framework (Content. Re-Use and Repurpose. Evidence) to convert content to open content
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 8. DELILA Project overview
      • 8 Work packages:
          • IL/ DL Audit
          • Mapping of digital/information literacy content to UKPSF
          • Content review for open-ness
          • Conversion of material to appropriate format (licensing etc.)
          • Repository customisation
          • Deposit of content
          • Dissemination and publicity
          • Quality control and evaluation
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 9. Conversion to OER
      • Learning curve quite steep
      • Challenges mostly due to inexperience!
      • IPR issues
      • Review content
        • 3 rd party content most common issue
        • Dealing with screenshots
      • Add Creative Commons information
      • Metadata
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 10. Sharing resources and evaluation http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
      • Materials added to local (customised) repositories at LSE and Birmingham
      • Materials also deposited into Jorum
      • Evaluation of resources to take place after deposit
      • DELILA developed evaluation criteria
      • Feedback suggested that quality control not feasible before resources are shared
    • 11. http://delilaopen.wordpress.com Customisation of IR (cont…)
    • 12. Issues
      • Are DL / IL resources more institutionally specific than other teaching materials?
      • IPR issues can be problematic
      • IPR issues avoided by removing content e.g. screenshots and using placeholder
      • CC licences: Non commercial / 2.5 or 3.0
      • Keeping materials up to date in repository
      • Reusing LSE/UoB material - how practical is it?
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 13. Lessons learned
      • DL and IL underpin teaching courses but not explicit in framework
      • Potential to re-use some DL / IL materials and to promote them better to teachers and educational developers
      • Improving creator workflow for resources
        • Record teaching material creation and store resources in a single place
        • Map resources to establish frameworks
        • Make OER considerations such as embedding CC information etc, early on
      http://delilaopen.wordpress.com
    • 14. OERs in DL: adopting a model of open learning in academic practice
      • A CDE teaching and research award
      • Collaborative: King’s and University of London International Programmes (Law)
    • 15. Aims and purpose
      • Develop and evaluate a set of OERs in academic practice to be used by ODL Tutors in HE including global institutional providers. 
      • Investigate appropriate format and environment for sharing the developed OERs. 
      • Evaluate the quality and uptake of these OERs.
      • Engage users/tutors with the concept of OERs by exposing them to the concept of open learning. 
      • Investigate drivers and barriers in the adoption of OERs.
    • 16. OERs vs. or in support of academic practice
      • Displaced from proprietary ‘silos’, i.e. the institutional VLEs.
      • Copyright ‘free’, as contributions to collective knowledge.
      • Most often they come against recent improvements in creation of e-learning content. They are frequently didactic in nature.
      • They are often elliptical shells to fill in with context and meaning. Context and wrap around activities are missing.
      • Interactive aspects and their learning design are separated from content and are often implicit rather than explicit.
    • 17.
      • Phase One : identify existing institutional teaching resources that can be repurposed into OERs
      • Phase Two : repurpose the identified teaching resources and develop them as OERs
      • Phase Three : link to policies, guidelines and documentation that currently exist in relation to the provision of OER as an online resource for practitioners who want to explore or use OERs, through a project wiki.
    • 18.
      • Phase Four : evaluate the OERs with an identified group of ODL tutors from the Laws programme. Attributes of quality that will be evaluated include:
      • Accuracy
      • Reputation of author/institution
      • Standard of technical production
      • Accessibility
      • Fitness for purpose
      • Clear rights declarations
      • uptake and perceptions of teaching practitioners.
      • Phase Five: devise a set of guidelines for ODL practitioners in using, repurposing and adopting OERs in a disciplinary context. Practitioners’ involvement.
    • 19. Examples of OERs
      • LSE Copyright course in Moodle licensed under CC – BY – SA licence
      • LSE Blogging for beginners class materials licensed under CC – BY – SA licence
    • 20. Group discussion
      • When do OERs fail?
        • What are the key barriers and challenges?
      • When do OERs succeed?
        • What are the drivers?
    • 21. Many thanks!