Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
OTTER OER, by Richard Mobbs, University of Leicester
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

OTTER OER, by Richard Mobbs, University of Leicester


Published on

Presentation at SCORE OER event 12 March 2010 in Bristol of OTTER OER Project by Richard Mobbs.

Presentation at SCORE OER event 12 March 2010 in Bristol of OTTER OER Project by Richard Mobbs.

Published in: Education
  • 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. OTTER Project By: Dr Richard Mobbs Beyond Distance Research Alliance Learning Technologist OTTER project [email_address]
  • 2. Presentation outline
      • The OTTER context
      • The C O RR E evaluation framework
      • Issues regarding transforming teaching materials into Open Educational Resources (OER).
      • Use of indicative evidence in the C O RR E evaluation framework
      • Questions and comments
  • 3. OTTER – creating OERs
    • Open
    • Transferable
    • Technology-enhanced
    • Educational
    • Resources
  • 4.
    • O TT E R is funded by JISC and the  Higher Education Academy
    • Project started in April 2009 and due to end in April 2010
    • OTTER works with 9 departments in the University of Leicester to release the equivalent of 360 credits of OERs into:
      • Jorum Open
      • UoL Plone
      • EvidenceNet
      • EduCommons
      • iTunes U etc
    • C O RR E is an evaluation framework in the development of OERs
    • Emerged from the OTTER ( O pen, T ransferable and T echnology-enabled E ducational R esources) project
    Background to O TT E R & C O RR E
  • 5. University of Leicester Context
    • Web server introduced in 1993 to support STILE Project (TLTP Phase I)
    • Tools produced for “diy” Web page creation
    • CWIS Project launched in 1996
  • 6. University of Leicester Issues
    • Staff only could publish to the Web
    • No quality control
    • No transformation
    • No context
    • No idea!
  • 7. Why OTTER?
    • Quality OERs enhance the University's image
    • Quality OERs attract students
    • Knowledge sharing across diverse contexts
  • 8. CORRE model – how the team works
  • 9.  
  • 10.  
  • 11.  
  • 12.  
  • 13.
      • The world is “Open”
      • ‘ We are on the cusp of a global revolution in teaching and learning. Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators are creating a world where each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge… [OERs] will help nourish the kind of participatory culture of learning, creating , sharing and cooperation that rapidly changing knowledge societies need.’
      • (The Cape Town Declaration, 2007)
  • 14. The world is “Open”
    • Global initiatives
      • MIT OpenCourseWare
      • Open University’s OpenLearn
      • OER Africa
      • MORIL The Pan-European OER project
      • China Open Res. for Educ. Consortium
    • Tools and services
      • Authoring tools e.g. LAMS, GLO Maker II, Xerte and COMPENDIUM;
      • Open licenses e.g. Creative Commons; GNU
      • Repositories e.g. iTunes U and OER Commons
  • 15.
      • Issues regarding the transformation of teaching materials into OERs
      • Staff attitudes to open access ( King et al., 2008)
      • Transforming existing teaching materials into OERs (Lane, 2006)
      • Degrees of openness ( Hodgkinson-Williams & Eve Gray, 2009)
      • Design for openness (Boyle, 2006; McAndrew and Weller, 2005)
      • Open teaching (Laurillard, 2008)
      • Evaluating learning objects for re-usability (Schoonenboom et al., 2009)
      • Open licensing for educational resources (Bissell, 2009)
      • Sustainability (Downes, 2006)
  • 16. “ my bag contents on a special day “ courtesy tnarik (flckr) some rights reserved The C O RR E evaluation framework “ C” is for CONTENT
  • 17. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • CONTENT refers to teaching materials from UoL partners.
    • 1. Indicative evidence for Gathering content.
      • Has the teaching material been used in an educational context at UoL?
      • Are there gaps in the material? e.g. missing units
      • Has the credit weighting been checked?
      • Has “partner agreement” been agreed?
  • 18. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • Indicative evidence for screening CONTENT
      • What type of content is it e.g. lecture?
      • Are there editorial issues?
      • Is the language offensive?
      • Is the language formal (e.g. jargons) or informal?
      • Are changes required to the learning design?
  • 19. The C O RR E framework “ A room with a view” by loungerie - The C O RR E evaluation framework: “ O” is for OPENNESS
  • 20. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • OPENNESS involves transforming teaching materials to make them p ublicly usable learning objects
      • 1. Indicative evidence for assessing the pedagogic dimension of openness:
        • Are changes required to learning goal(s)?
        • Are changes required to learning activity(ies)?
        • Are changes required to learning outcome(s)?
        • Are changes required to the assessment?
        • Is learning support required to use this material?
        • What level of users is the material aimed at?
  • 21. The C O RR E evaluation framework
      • OPENNESS: (cont).
      • 2. Indicative evidence for assessing the legal dimension of openness
        • Does the learning object contain copyright material?
        • Is the material still in copyright?
        •   Have 3rd party materials/IPR been duly acknowledged?
        •   Has written permission been obtained from rights holders?
        •   Is it cost effective to negotiate a quote or reject the material?
        •   Has an appropriate Creative Commons license been assigned to the learning object?
  • 22. The C O RR E evaluation framework
      • OPENNESS: (cont).
      • 3. Indicative evidence for assessing the technical dimension of openness
        • Is the learning object (LO) available in a range of formats?
        •   Is the learning object standalone or does it refer to related resources?
        •   Are other tools/software required by end-user to use the LO?
        •   Will the LO be compatible with other repositories?
        •   Does the LO have the potential to evolve as technology develops?
        •   Does the end-user require further technical help to use the LO?
  • 23. “ Coke scooter” by Gertrud K. - “ RR” is for REUSE/ REPURPOSE The C O RR E evaluation framework:
  • 24. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • REUSE/REPURPOSE are focused on “adaptability” and “modification” of the OER
    • This is done through reality checking and validation by:
      • OTTER project team
      • UoL academic partner
      • Other UoL academics
      • Students
      • External educators
  • 25. The C O RR E evaluation fram ework
    • REUSE/RE-PURPOSE : Indicative evidence:
      • Is the CC license appropriate?
      • How clear is the learning goal?
      • How engaging or interactive is the learning activity?
      • How clear is the learning outcome?
      • How easy is it to navigate through the learning material?
      • Is the OER ready to be released to various repositories?
      • What improvements are further required if any?
  • 26. “ E” is for EVIDENCE The C O RR E evaluation framework Scales Of Justice by VaXzine.
  • 27. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • Indicative evidence for tracking evidence - web statistics.
      • Number of of views
      • Number of downloads
      • Google analytics
      • Web bugs
      • Star ratings
    EVIDENCE is focused on tracking use, reuse, adoption and impact of the OER.
  • 28. The C O RR E evaluation framework
    • EVIDENCE (cont.)
    • Indicative evidence for tracking evidence - web survey
      • What is the title of the OER you downloaded?
      •   From which geographical region of the world are you accessing the OER?
      •   What changes or modifications did you make to the OER?
      •   What difficulties did you encounter using or accessing the OER?
      •   In what specific way did the OER benefit your teaching or learning?
      •   How would you rate the quality of the OER: “excellent”, “good”, or “poor”?
      •   Would you recommend the OER to others?
      •   How can the OER be improved?
  • 29. The C O RR E evaluation framework C ONTENT R EUSE/ R EPURPOSE E VIDENCE O PENNESS Gathering Rights Clearance Internal validation Tracking Screening Transformation External validation Release to repository Formatting
  • 30. Sustainability : The O TT E R Future
    • ?
    • Self-service + Library Copyright team
    • C O RR E
    • iTunes
  • 31. Questions & comments on O TT E R Thank You.
  • 32. References
    • Bissell , A. N., (2009). Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open learning: The journal of open and distance learning . vol 24, No. 1. pp. 97 – 106.
    • Boyle , T., (2006). An Agile method for developing learning objects. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? (pp. 91-99). Sydney: Sydney University Press.
    • Downes , S., (2006). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects . vol 3. 2007. pp. 29 – 44.
    • Hodgkinson-William , C., and Gray , E., (2009) Degrees of openness: The emergence of Open Educational Resources at the University of Cape Town. International journal of education and development using ICT . Vol. 5. No. 5.
    • King, M., etal (2008). Analysis of academic attitudes and existing processes to inform the design of teaching and learning material repositories: A user-centred approach. Active learning in higher education. Vol 9. No. 2.
    • Laurillard, D., (2008).Open Teaching: the key to sustainable and effective open education. In Opening up education: the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content and open knowledge. Iiyoshi, T., and Kumar, M.S.V., (eds). MIT Press. Pp. 329 – 335.
    • Lane, A., (2006). From Pillar to Post: exploring the issues involved in repurposing distance learning materials for use as Open Educational Resources . Found at: [ Accessed: 22 October 2009]
    • McAndrew, P., and Weller, M., (2005). Applying learning design to supported open learning In Learning Design: A handbook on modeling and delivering networked education and training, Koper, R. and Tattersal, C., Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 281-290.
    • Schoonenboom, J., Sligte, H., Kliphuis, E., (2009). Guidelines for support re-use of existing digital learning materials and methods in higher education.ALT-J Research in learning technology. Vol. 17, no. 2. pp. 131 – 141.
    • Straub, R. , (2008). Is the World Open? Found at: 1 Nº 8. pp. 1-5. [ Accessed: 19 October 2009]
    • Yaun,L., MacNie, S., and Kraan, W., (2008). Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education . Found at : [ Accessed: 19 October 2009]
  • 33. Image Acknowledgements
    • All images from Flickr, published under Creative Commons licences :
    • Slide 10: “A room with a view” by loungerie -
    • Slide 11: “Coke scooter” by Gertrud K. -
    • Slide 12: “Crayon scene investigation” by adamneilward - /