Social mediapanel cetisrow_190410

784 views
758 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
784
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social mediapanel cetisrow_190410

  1. 1. Flying Under the Radarlessons learned from a fun ‘faux-pository’ project<br />SHEEN Sharing<br />CETIS-ROW:<br />Repositories and the Open Web<br />19 April 2010, Birkbeck College<br />Sarah Currier<br />Sarah Currier Consultancy Ltd.<br />
  2. 2. Traditional Educational Repositories and Web2.0 Resource Sharing?<br /><ul><li>I’m a formal repositories kinda gal, a librarian with a primary professional interest in learning materials repositories and educational metadata since 1999.
  3. 3. For 14 months I had the guilty pleasure of organising a totally Web2.0-based educational resource sharing project, with some success.</li></li></ul><li>A starting point<br />For me, the questions are:<br />How can educational communities make best use of both formal repositories and Web2.0 sharing?<br />How can repository developers and managers support educational communities by leveraging Web2.0-type technologies?<br />
  4. 4. What’s the difference?<br />Formal repositories meet a certain set of use cases, requiring things like:<br />A long-term view of, and expertise in, resource curation and management;<br />Good quality metadata for high precision and recall in resource discovery;<br />In some use cases, resource preservation;<br />Solid support for rights protection;<br />... and so on ...<br />BUT! All this is expensive and requires a high degree of strategic buy-in from funders.<br />Not all educational communities<br />(a) have the requisite resource or support, or<br />(b) operate with those types of use cases.<br />
  5. 5. What’s the difference?<br />Formal repositories meet a certain set of use cases, requiring things like:<br />A long-term view of, and expertise in, resource curation and management;<br />Good quality metadata for high precision and recall in resource discovery;<br />In some use cases, resource preservation;<br />Solid support for rights protection;<br />... and so on ...<br />BUT! All this is expensive and requires a high degree of strategic buy-in from funders.<br />Not all educational communities<br />(a) have the requisite resource or support, or<br />(b) operate with those types of use cases.<br />
  6. 6. Educational communities of practice?<br />CoPs and resource sharing in UK HE:<br />PROWE, CD-LOR, SPIRE (JISC DRP 2005-2007)<br />JISC Emerge, Pathfinder DMU Learning Exchanges<br />Interviewed key people.<br />“[...] the pedagogical, social, and organisational aspects of these communities have not been at the forefront in the design and development [...]. Research has consistently demonstrated that the most substantial barriers in uptake of technology are rooted in these factors”<br />Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007. CD-LOR Project<br />
  7. 7. Inclusion and identity<br />JISC Emerge (2009) found that “[t]he effective use of Web2.0 applications depends essentially on human networks. This raises questions of inclusion, exclusion and identity”.<br />We’ve had to stay very aware of the different levels of engagement/confidence and utilise the CoP and peer stories to help people along.<br />
  8. 8. An educational communitywithout a repository<br />Scottish Employability Coordinators’ Network (ECN).<br />Made up of those in Scottish Funding Council’s funded posts supporting employability in Scottish HE.<br />Tossed a small amount of money to spend on small projects to meet their pressing needs.<br />
  9. 9. An educational communitywithout a repository<br />The ECN’s original idea was that “someone” should provide them with a Website, perhaps powered by a “repository”, and populate it for them.<br />Given the project’s resourcing, timescale and intended outcomes, they were advised by JISC CETIS to look at Web2.0 / social media resource sharing instead.<br />The HEA was keen to use the forthcoming EvidenceNet repository as a more formal home for resources that required this further down the line.<br />JorumOpen was also still in development at the time.<br />
  10. 10. Project resources<br /><ul><li>Project timescale: Jan 2009 – Feb 2010
  11. 11. Project lead: Cherie Woolmer, Employability Coordinator, University of Strathclyde (voluntary)
  12. 12. Project consultant, 2.5 days / week for 9 months: Sarah Currier (now extended for 4 months )
  13. 13. Project Development Group: enthusiasts in the Employability Coordinators’ Network (voluntary)
  14. 14. Admin and advisory support from HEA
  15. 15. Travel and events budget
  16. 16. No technology budget</li></li></ul><li>Project resources<br /><ul><li>Project timescale: Jan 2009 – Feb 2010
  17. 17. Project lead: Cherie Woolmer, Employability Coordinator, University of Strathclyde (voluntary)
  18. 18. Project consultant, 2.5 days / week for 9 months: Sarah Currier (now extended for 4 months )
  19. 19. Project Development Group: enthusiasts in the Employability Coordinators’ Network (voluntary)
  20. 20. Admin and advisory support from HEA
  21. 21. Travel and events budget
  22. 22. No technology budget</li></li></ul><li>Project approach<br />Experimental -- Developmental -- Iterative<br />Must have ownership and involvement of ECN to succeed<br />Flexible: change track quickly if something isn’t working<br />Safe communication spaces + open dissemination spaces<br />Must not be driven by traditional project reporting outputs<br />CoP = sharing of knowledge, experience and peer teaching within community<br />CoP = room for mistakes, learning from trial and error, reporting what doesn’t work as well as what does, supporting each other<br />Piloting use of freely available Web tools<br />Validated 100% by Project Review!<br />
  23. 23. Project approach<br />Experimental -- Developmental -- Iterative<br /><ul><li>Must have ownership and involvement of ECN to succeed
  24. 24. Flexible: change track quickly if something isn’t working
  25. 25. Safe communication spaces + open dissemination spaces
  26. 26. Must not be driven by traditional project reporting outputs
  27. 27. CoP = sharing of knowledge, experience and peer teaching within community
  28. 28. CoP = room for mistakes, learning from trial and error, reporting what doesn’t work as well as what does, supporting each other
  29. 29. Piloting use of freely available Web tools</li></ul>Validated 100% by Project Review!<br />
  30. 30. Getting to know the community (1)<br />Ca. 20-22 members at any given time.<br />National, across all Scotland’s HE institutions<br />Geographically distributed, with some members, particularly in the north of Scotland, less able to attend centrally based meetings;<br />Mostly female (76% female / 24% male);<br />A mix of part-time and full-time (59% full-time / 41% part-time) ...<br />
  31. 31. Getting to know the community (2)<br />A mix of professional backgrounds:<br />Lecturers;<br />Researchers;<br />Careers advisers;<br />Policy developers and implementers;<br />Staff developers;<br />Educational developers;<br />Librarians<br />... ?<br />
  32. 32. Getting to know the community (3)<br /><ul><li>A mix of institutional situations, in terms of:</li></ul>1. the type of department they are based in:<br /><ul><li>59% educational development;
  33. 33. 41% careers service;
  34. 34. some co-located in different departments;</li></ul>2. the emphasis required by their institution:<br /><ul><li>working at a policy level;
  35. 35. working on curriculum and course development;
  36. 36. working directly with academics and students.</li></ul>3. university type, from red brick to the ancients, including the Open University and the federated UHI Millennium Institute.<br />
  37. 37. Getting to know the community (4)<br />Temporary: funding for their work will not continue beyond the next couple of years (a few have permanent posts).<br />A small number of institutions did not employ designated “employability coordinators”, but most did.<br />
  38. 38. Implications<br /><ul><li>There is significant time pressure on many ECN members;
  39. 39. There are a range of professional and institutional cultures, priorities and communication styles coming to bear on their ability to participate;
  40. 40. There are institutional cultures with different levels of support for use of technology;
  41. 41. There is a sense that the work accomplished must not be lost after the end of the ECN’s funded tenure in their roles.</li></li></ul><li>Implications<br /><ul><li>There is significant time pressure on many ECN members;
  42. 42. There are a range of professional and institutional cultures, priorities and communication styles coming to bear on their ability to participate;
  43. 43. There are institutional cultures with different levels of support for use of technology;
  44. 44. There is a sense that the work accomplished must not be lost after the end of the ECN’s funded tenure in their roles.</li></li></ul><li>ECN Requirements<br /><ul><li>Communication:</li></ul>Mutual support;<br />Sharing experience, practice and learning.<br /><ul><li>Resource sharing, comprising:</li></ul>Discovery, sharing, recommending and rating;<br />Sharing experiences of use of resources;<br />Targeted resource dissemination to all stakeholders.<br /><ul><li>One-stop shop for employability for:</li></ul>New employees coming in;<br />Employer stakeholders;<br />Academics;<br />Students ... And more?<br />
  45. 45. Diigo + Netvibes = 1 free repository?<br />Where we are now<br />
  46. 46. So, is this a repository?<br />http://groups.diigo.com/group/employability<br />(... maybe, kind of ... but it didn’t meet all this community’s requirements ...)<br />
  47. 47. What about this?<br />http://www.netvibes.com/Employability<br />According to that formal repository definitions, definitely not! But to this community, it completes the meeting of their requirements.<br />They are delighted with their Web-based resource, their one-stop-shop for employability resources for Scottish higher education, and they will call it a repository, or a portal, whether we like it or not!<br />
  48. 48. Netvibes and formal repositories<br /><ul><li>Formal repositories with working newsfeeds:</li></ul>EdShare at Southampton University;<br />Anything based on intraLibrary (but only if you can get behind the wall; their current open interface is based on SRU and doesn’t offer feeds out-of-the-box);<br /><ul><li>Formal repositories not currently offering feeds:</li></ul>HEA EvidenceNet (but they are working on it, and we’ve used their search URL in meantime);<br />IRISS Learning Exchange is an example of a good intraLibrary repository using their open interface: again, the search URL can be used.<br />JorumOpen.<br /><ul><li>Netvibes SWORD widget: rudimentary right now: not usable for a community like this.</li></li></ul><li>Reflections<br />
  49. 49. What I would share with repository people<br /><ul><li>Overall: put educational communities at the heart of requirements gathering and ongoing planning
  50. 50. First priority: make sure at the very minimum you support newsfeeds robustly and flexibly:</li></ul>Make sure users can easily create standard feeds based on any search/browse/tag/collection;<br />Provide feeds that include user ratings / recommendations / commentary;<br />Make sure they really work!<br /><ul><li>Second priority: remote, easy deposit tools (use SWORD) that can capture metadata;
  51. 51. Third priority: “save/share this resource”.. Especially to email, Twitter, Facebook, social bookmarking / recommendation sites.</li></ul>Again, include ratings/recommendations/commentary.<br />
  52. 52. What I would share with repository people<br />IMO:<br />Don’t waste time creating your own version of Facebook or MySpace or Twitter or Ning or other Web 2.0 tools as part of your repository.<br />Instead, make sure you work well with existing tools your users use.<br />Let a million flowers bloom. You are not and never will be a one-stop-shop.<br />
  53. 53. References<br />Currier, S. (2009) SHEEN Sharing Benchmarking and Final Requirements Report. Final Public Draft. Higher Education Academy. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16529191/SHEEN-Sharing-Benchmarking-and-Requirements-Report-Final-Public-Draft<br />Currier, S. (2009) SHEEN Sharing Review. Final Public Draft. Higher Education Academy. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16529201/SHEEN-Sharing-Review-Report-Final-Public-Draft<br />Hughes, A. (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World: Report of an independent Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students’ widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies. JISC. Available: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/heweb2.aspx<br />IMS (2003) IMS Digital Repositories Interoperability - Core Functions Information Model. Version 1.0 Final Specification Available: http://www.imsglobal.org/digitalrepositories/index.html<br />JISC Emerge (2009) JISC Emerge: A User-Centred Social Learning Media Hub: Supporting the Users and Innovation R&D Community Network. JISC. Available: http://reports.jiscemerge.org.uk/Publications/<br />Margaryan, A., Milligan, C. And Douglas, P. (2007) CD-LOR Deliverable 9: Structured Guidelines for Setting up Learning Object Repositories. Available: http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/cd-lor/documents/CD-LOR_Structured_Guidelines_v1p0_000.pdf<br />
  54. 54. Credits<br />Image on 1st slide by ycc2106:<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/ycc2106/103383461/ available under Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en_GB<br />Slides by Sarah Currier, Consultant, SHEEN Sharing Project<br />http://www.sarahcurrier.com/<br />sarah.currier@gmail.com<br />Slides © 2010 Higher Education Academy.<br />

×