Reprod Reflections And Critical Friends Mar09 2

482 views

Published on

Critical Friend Report Reflections (Heather Williamson)
Morning Session - RePRODUCE
JISC eLearning Programme Meeting - 3.3.09

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
482
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reprod Reflections And Critical Friends Mar09 2

  1. 1. critical friends – your reflections Heather Williamson, eLearning Programme Manager
  2. 2. the reproduce critical friend groups <ul><li>Summary of your reflections </li></ul><ul><li>Short presentation from Group 3 </li></ul><ul><li>group 9 </li></ul><ul><li>PSYCHE </li></ul><ul><li>ORM </li></ul><ul><li>group 8 </li></ul><ul><li>ROCOCO </li></ul><ul><li>Numbers add up </li></ul><ul><li>group 6 </li></ul><ul><li>ATLAS </li></ul><ul><li>Using Digitised Resources to Enhance Learning in Higher Education </li></ul><ul><li>group 5 </li></ul><ul><li>ReCITE </li></ul><ul><li>REGEN-1 </li></ul><ul><li>MOSAIC </li></ul><ul><li>group 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Intro to Advertising </li></ul><ul><li>REVOLVE </li></ul><ul><li>group 3 (inc 7) </li></ul><ul><li>Biology of pain </li></ul><ul><li>Environment Poverty and health </li></ul><ul><li>REVIP </li></ul><ul><li>ADAPT </li></ul><ul><li>group 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Maths Support </li></ul><ul><li>Q-ROLO </li></ul><ul><li>group 1 </li></ul><ul><li>REFORM </li></ul><ul><li>BL4ACE </li></ul><ul><li>SMILE </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>while content has to be context-free to be reused, the act of reuse inevitably requires contextualisation. </li></ul><ul><li>the producer of materials needs to work with both the module in mind AND future external usage </li></ul><ul><li>For the student a range of views identified: </li></ul><ul><li>from making no difference: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ prioritising reuse may not result in any significant difference in the learning experience from the student perspective” [Group 5] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>to a potentially negative impact: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ if students are ‘spoon-fed’ content resources or RLOs by tutors this could lead to the students not developing their own self-directed learning skills”. [Group 3] </li></ul></ul>effective use of content resources to support learning
  4. 4. <ul><li>IPR and the different levels of clearance needed </li></ul><ul><li>development of RLOs has taken more time than originally envisaged & costed </li></ul><ul><li>technological issues around choice of VLE and implementation of standards: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ hardly anything is properly packaged as an IMS CP, SCORM etc.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>currency of content – older resources may no longer work or become outdated </li></ul><ul><li>without additional support academics simply do not have time or technical ability to repurpose and use RLOs </li></ul>re-purposing learning content [1]
  5. 5. <ul><li>easier to ‘scrap and start from scratch’ than to repurpose someone else’s material for your own use. Due to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the subject specific nature of materials; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tutors ability to judge the appropriateness of resources for their intended audience; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tutors may not feel as involved with or as much ownership of the material, resulting in disassociation and/or disengagement; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tutors may feel that they are ‘cheating’ by using someone else’s material; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tutors may feel as if they have less control over course materials. </li></ul></ul>re-purposing learning content [2]
  6. 6. <ul><li>vast amount of confusion about copyright issues amongst academics – both those who are willing and those who are not willing to share materials. </li></ul><ul><li>can be hard to find material of good quality </li></ul><ul><li>repositories are potentially fabulous sources of material, but are completely useless if that material cannot be found or isn't what the index suggests. Depositors need to consider this/have training in this area before depositing </li></ul><ul><li>sharing content and resources in terms of social learning is growing - for example, the use of sites such as Delicious and Flickr is increasingly common </li></ul><ul><li>evaluation issues not really covered in the reports </li></ul>accessing and evaluating learning content
  7. 7. <ul><li>need for a common format for materials to be shared between VLEs – otherwise it is very difficult to produce interoperable objects. </li></ul><ul><li>critical importance of proactively establishing (institutional?) policies and processes from the outset. </li></ul><ul><li>Widespread take-up of use and re-use of materials needs a simpler approach and more consideration for the end-user. If language used is aimed at the technically minded, it is likely to prove a barrier to many outside of this category. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Ask someone outside of the project what SCORM or IMTS is and the look is often a blank one” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>need for clear and consistent standard taxonomies and hierarchies to support searching various repositories. </li></ul>describing, managing and sharing learning content
  8. 8. <ul><li>“ There’s a way forward, but there’s no way back” </li></ul><ul><li>going back to previous materials is almost an impossible task. </li></ul><ul><li>content needs to be: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>findable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>have clear IPR and licensing conditions upfront </li></ul></ul><ul><li>an iterative and ‘messy’ process - progressing material from search, through copyright clearance to reuse/repurpose. </li></ul><ul><li>reuse and repurposing of materials requires input (frequently concurrent) from at least two sources – usually technologist and subject specialist </li></ul><ul><li>a key aim of the RLO should be to ignite an interest in the topic, which will motivate the student to undertake further research </li></ul>design of learning content to support sharing and repurposing
  9. 9. <ul><li> Intute  Salmon’s ‘E-tivities’ framework  UWE and BATH research </li></ul><ul><li>observatory </li></ul><ul><li> London Pedagogic Planner  National Data Archive  TechDis </li></ul><ul><li> X4L  REHASH project  Clinical Skills Online </li></ul><ul><li> eViP  JISC’s DesignShare, D4LD and LD4P projects </li></ul><ul><li> CETL for Reusable Learning Objects  London Pedagogy Planner </li></ul><ul><li> Jorum  repository related projects (Streamline and Persona) </li></ul><ul><li> Scottish Film Archive  Len Bird 3 C model to curriculum design </li></ul><ul><li> JISC digitisation programme </li></ul>resources used
  10. 10. <ul><li>“ Whatever does happen, the group concluded that the way we are managing educational content now is unlikely to be the way we will manage it in the future.” </li></ul><ul><li>Group 5 </li></ul><ul><li>http://groups.google.com/group/jisc-reproduce </li></ul>

×