Open and user-generated content: strategies to address quality and copyright issues in Higher Education Thomas Kretschmer ...
Background <ul><li>„ CONtent Creation Excellence through Dialogue in Education“ – CONCEDE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of...
Introduction <ul><li>“… because quality is no  objective  characteristics of a learning resource or a service, but is cons...
 
Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008
Changing faces of e-Learning From Distribution…   … to Collaboration and Reflection Transmissive Learning Expansive Learni...
Definition UGC <ul><li>User-generated content  ( UGC ) (…) refers to various kinds of media content, publicly available, t...
Examples UGC <ul><li>Discussion boards </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs/Micro-blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>So...
Definition OER <ul><li>„ OER are digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners t...
Scope of OER Margulies (2005 )
To summarise: <ul><li>UGC may be an educational resource …or not </li></ul><ul><li>UGC may be an OER …or not </li></ul><ul...
Universities and UGC  <ul><li>Inhibiting factors to the introduction of UGC into HE: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of time, s...
What is the object of quality assessment in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches ?  (QMPP, 2009) <ul><li>Acti...
What are methods and instruments to assess/develop quality in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches?  (QMPP, 2...
Peers‘ / learners‘ side Peer creation Peer validation Editing Updating Enriching Benchmarking Peer reviews Peer reflection...
Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0  (Ehlers 2009)   Teachers   Evaluations aimed at target group  Peers, lea...
Copyright / licensing <ul><li>Traditional approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OER: by definition not possible </li></ul></ul><u...
The CONCEDE quality framework (www.concede.cc) Quality Procedures of LEARNERS (discussed through peer reviews, comments an...
The vision <ul><li>Open Educational Practices (OEP) are defined as  practices  which support the (re)use and production of...
Thank you for your attention!! <ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.fim.uni-erlangen.de </li></ul></...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Pelc 2010 ugc final

1,329
-1

Published on

Presentation held at the PELC conference by Thomas Kretschmer and Thomas Fischer, ILI

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,329
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The CONCEDE multi-layered quality framework is described below. 1. A first level of quality assurance is based on users’ comments, reviews and ratings in relation to a learning experience taking place within one HE institution. This is a bottom up process, since users decide on whatever grounds they prefer whether a UGC is relevant to their needs. This can be done by letting users rate or comment on the UGC or describe how they have used it. The argument for such an approach would be that quality is not an inherent part of an UGC but contextual. It is only the specific learning situation that determines whether a UGC is useful or not, and therefore the user should be the judge. Moreover, in this way UGC is viewed through various “lenses”, such as professional societies, universities, school boards, publishers, colleagues and peers, and various “criteria”: most popular content, most linked, highest user ratings, and learning assessment rating (OECD, 2007, Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources). Users reviews will be linked to their e-portfolios (linked in; social network…), so that peers will be able to contextualise their judgement and reviews. In this way it will be possible to link narrative elements of content creators to UGC: the assumption is that UGC must not be anonymous. A 2.0 environment will be prompted for hosting this process. 2. A second layer of quality assurance is based on institutional quality procedures undertaken by universities. Institutions most probably use internal quality checks and procedures before integrating UGC into learning provisions. Teachers are the main actors of this level. This could be considered a top down process. The third layer is dialogue and negotiations among the representatives of these two levels of quality assurance (i.e. teachers and learners) in order to reach a consensus which determine a synthesis of both layers described above. Dialogue and exchange of practices will take place both in presence and through the ad hoc learning environment
  • Pelc 2010 ugc final

    1. 1. Open and user-generated content: strategies to address quality and copyright issues in Higher Education Thomas Kretschmer & Thomas Fischer Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM) Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)
    2. 2. Background <ul><li>„ CONtent Creation Excellence through Dialogue in Education“ – CONCEDE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of User Generated Content in HE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>„ Open Educational Quality Initiative“ – OPAL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of Open Educational Resources in HE </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>“… because quality is no objective characteristics of a learning resource or a service, but is constituted as a specific characteristic of a context which – in turn - is made up through the relation of the personal, organisational, social and structural interaction of the stakeholders involved.” Ehlers (2010) </li></ul>
    4. 5. Explosion of User Generated Content Time person of the year 2008
    5. 6. Changing faces of e-Learning From Distribution… … to Collaboration and Reflection Transmissive Learning Expansive Learning Learning Management Systems Materials online Presentation Information E-Portfolios Weblogs Communication Collaboration WiKis Communities
    6. 7. Definition UGC <ul><li>User-generated content ( UGC ) (…) refers to various kinds of media content, publicly available, that are produced by end-users. (Wikipedia) </li></ul><ul><li>OECD (2008): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publication and sharing: be it on a publicly accessible website, a collaborative project work, or on a page on a social networking site accessible to a selected group of people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative effort: often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation outside professional contexts: but possibility of feedback into organisational settings . It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. Motivating factors include: connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself. </li></ul></ul>
    7. 8. Examples UGC <ul><li>Discussion boards </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs/Micro-blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking sites </li></ul><ul><li>News Sites </li></ul><ul><li>Memories </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile Photos & Videos </li></ul><ul><li>Customer review sites </li></ul><ul><li>Experience or photo sharing sites </li></ul><ul><li>Any other website that offers the opportunity for the consumer to share their knowledge and familiarity with a product or experience </li></ul>
    8. 9. Definition OER <ul><li>„ OER are digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and re-use for teaching, learning and research“ (OECD 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation resources </li></ul></ul>
    9. 10. Scope of OER Margulies (2005 )
    10. 11. To summarise: <ul><li>UGC may be an educational resource …or not </li></ul><ul><li>UGC may be an OER …or not </li></ul><ul><li>Both can be learning objects </li></ul>
    11. 12. Universities and UGC <ul><li>Inhibiting factors to the introduction of UGC into HE: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of time, skills and reward system for teachers and still a significant share of learners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reluctance of many teachers to use or create UGC, since they challenge the concept of “authority” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring quality of UGC is sometimes perceived as an additional burden instead of a key asset for learning experiences’ enrichment and knowledge management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measuring quality of collaborative UGC is not easy due to the difficulty of seizing individual contributions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The use of UGC for learning is often considered a supplement to traditional pedagogic strategies instead of vehicle of pedagogic and organisational innovation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>insufficient involvement of stakeholders, policy makers and users in the dialogue on quality into higher education </li></ul></ul>
    12. 13. What is the object of quality assessment in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches ? (QMPP, 2009) <ul><li>Activity, behaviour, communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social interaction and networks; process of communication; activity, behaviour, communication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process of learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process more important than outcomes; control of activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Structure of learning objects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User satisfaction; standardization; tagging </li></ul></ul>
    13. 14. What are methods and instruments to assess/develop quality in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches? (QMPP, 2009) <ul><li>Self assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowerment of learners; supporting system; tools & guidelines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Peer reviews, external assessment and collaborative dialogue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Polls, surveys; wisdom of the crowds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Challenges and problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Absence of standards; „garbage-in-garbage-out“-problem </li></ul></ul>
    14. 15. Peers‘ / learners‘ side Peer creation Peer validation Editing Updating Enriching Benchmarking Peer reviews Peer reflections Peer learning Enabling processes Enabling tools Enabling policies Enabling policies
    15. 16. Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009) Teachers Evaluations aimed at target group Peers, learning communities Social recommendation Teachers Assessment of e-portfolios Learners with the help of/ feedback by teachers Self-evaluation Quality assessment by Methods of quality development
    16. 17. Copyright / licensing <ul><li>Traditional approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OER: by definition not possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UGC: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limitation of creativity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Problem to define contribution of individuals in collaborative outputs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Creative-Commons-alike approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OER: by definition included </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UGC: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increased reputation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>One problem disappears (there are enough left) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    17. 18. The CONCEDE quality framework (www.concede.cc) Quality Procedures of LEARNERS (discussed through peer reviews, comments and rating) INSTITUTIONAL Quality Procedures (primarily represented by teachers) Dialogue & Negotiation
    18. 19. The vision <ul><li>Open Educational Practices (OEP) are defined as practices which support the (re)use and production of high quality OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path </li></ul>
    19. 20. Thank you for your attention!! <ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.fim.uni-erlangen.de </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.efquel.org </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skype: kre.fim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SecondLife: Hildegard Morpork </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Follow-up at the: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EFQUEL Innovation Forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sept. 8-10, Lisbon (Portugal) </li></ul></ul>

    ×