QA in e-Learning and Open Educational Resources (OER)


Published on

Introductory slides for a workshop on updating the e-learning quality assurance benchmarks of the E-xcellence NEXT project

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

No notes for slide
  • Note categories of users
  • Quality process Checking Peer review Feedback Rating / voting / recommendation Branding / provenance / reputation
  • QA in e-Learning and Open Educational Resources (OER)

    1. 1. QA in Open Educational Resources (OER): Open access to quality teaching resources E-xcellence NEXT European Seminar on QA in e-learning UNESCO, Paris , 16-17 th June 2011
    2. 2. Jon Rosewell & Giselle Ferreira The Open University [email_address] [email_address] <ul><li> </li></ul>
    3. 3. What goes under banner of OER? <ul><li>OECD: ‘digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Categories of users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content – but also tools, licences, practices… </li></ul></ul>OECD (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. doi:10.1787/9789264032125-en
    4. 4. What ‘Resources’? <ul><li>Size </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Courses / courseware </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning objects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Formats </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning objects: SCORM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Text: PDF, XML </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assets: images, audio, video </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction: Flash, applets, QTI </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Stakeholders <ul><li>Policy makers </li></ul><ul><li>QA agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Learners </li></ul><ul><li>Funders! </li></ul><ul><li>Complicated by fact that roles e.g. for teacher can be both creators and consumers </li></ul>
    6. 6. Motivations <ul><li>Government </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Widen participation, social inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promote life-long learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bridge gap between informal and formal learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development / aid agenda </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Motivations <ul><li>Institutions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Altruism: traditional academic values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Material created with public funds should be widely available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction in cost by reuse and sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality improvement by sharing expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Showcase to attract new students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative business models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve internal reuse and record keeping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research, funding, partnerships… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Panic! </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Motivations <ul><li>Individuals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Altruism: traditional academic values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved reputation & visibility, ie non-traditional publishing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not worth the effort to exploit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality improvement by collaboration, dialogue… </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Intellectual property rights <ul><li>Creative Commons spectrum </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Public domain, CC0 (no rights reserved) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution (CC-BY) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution No Derivatives (CC-BY-ND) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Full copyright (all rights reserved) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>licence incompatibility when combining works </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>attribution stacking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>http:// / </li></ul>
    10. 10. Other rights & other info <ul><li>Web 2 Rights </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OER IPR Support </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Patterns of use <ul><li>Generators or consumers? </li></ul><ul><li>Top-down or bottom-up? </li></ul><ul><li>Developed world: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers use to enrich teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions use for marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals use for informal learning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developing world: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions use to refresh curriculum </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Use and reuse <ul><li>Discovery & retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Folksonomies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use and reuse </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Quality <ul><li>Is it possible to evaluate quality of components in isolation, or only in the context of their use? </li></ul>
    14. 14. Quality points Provenance Reputation Brand creation use user recommendation peer review OER repository checking
    15. 15. Quality dimensions <ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogical effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of use </li></ul><ul><li>Reusability </li></ul>
    16. 16. Quality dimensions <ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accuracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Currency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevance </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Quality dimensions <ul><li>Pedagogical effectiveness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prerequisites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Quality dimensions <ul><li>Ease of use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual attractiveness, engaging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear navigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functional! </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Quality dimensions <ul><li>Reusability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Format </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Localisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discoverability: metadata </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Just how open is ‘open’? <ul><li>Technological barriers </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>bandwidth / software / tools </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Disability </li></ul><ul><li>Culture / localisation </li></ul><ul><li>Digital preservation </li></ul>
    21. 21. Capability maturity models <ul><li>Assumes institutions evolve to higher forms… </li></ul><ul><li>Use OERs  Adapt OER material  Create OER material </li></ul><ul><li>See, for example, OPAL OEP Guide http:// /publications/guide/ </li></ul>
    22. 22. Trends with greater use of OER / OEP <ul><li>use  create </li></ul><ul><li>teacher centred  learner centred </li></ul><ul><li>transmission  constructivism </li></ul><ul><li>(sage on stage)  (guide on side) </li></ul><ul><li>focus on outcome  focus on process </li></ul><ul><li>standardised  personalised learning </li></ul><ul><li>individual  social/ peer learning </li></ul><ul><li>See OPAL (Open Education Quality Initiative) / </li></ul>
    23. 23. Connected ideas… <ul><li>Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Co-construction </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul>
    24. 24. OER & E-xcellence NEXT <ul><li>How might OERs contribute to high quality in e-learning? </li></ul><ul><li>What risks to quality might arise? </li></ul><ul><li>Which of the existing E-xcellence quality benchmarks might apply in this context? </li></ul><ul><li>Are any new benchmarks needed to cover this scenario? </li></ul>
    25. 25. Case studies <ul><li>OpenLearn </li></ul><ul><li>Connexions </li></ul><ul><li>TESSA </li></ul><ul><li>WikiEducator </li></ul><ul><li>MIT OpenCourseware </li></ul><ul><li>OpenED </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    26. 26. Use cases <ul><li>Individual life-long learner finding material for own use </li></ul><ul><li>Individual teacher obtains assets and uses in own material </li></ul><ul><li>Course uses podcasts from iTunes U </li></ul><ul><li>Course uses a 10-hour unit </li></ul><ul><li>Entire 100-hour module reused, with new assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Course and assignments in OER; tutorial / marking / accreditation offered for fee </li></ul><ul><li>Consortium develops material for own use and ‘frees’ it </li></ul>
    27. 27. Issues raised in preparation session <ul><li>Rights restricted to users within borders of country – esp important that visible at start. Really only partly open. </li></ul><ul><li>Business model – teasers to recruit </li></ul><ul><li>(Poland) Specially prepared material for users with disabilities but only open for those users </li></ul><ul><li>Poland: future publicly funded material will be open </li></ul><ul><li>When is a resource an educational resource? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we assure quality of materials used in learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Skill / added value / quality in joining resources together </li></ul>
    28. 28. OER Feedback <ul><li>Maybe better to have specific benchmarks rather than extend existing ones (which would become too complex, too multifaceted) </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative view: use general benchmarks so that don’t need to change with new technology. Use manual / assessor notes to expand </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to track actual use of OERs </li></ul><ul><li>Most important on list are institutional policies and internal QA mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Indicators on grid don’t say anything about pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of bits: may be problematic re accessibility re levels etc </li></ul><ul><li>Assumed context of open & lifelong learning </li></ul>
    29. 29. Social networks feedback <ul><li>Pragmatic answer: add new benchmarks as needed </li></ul><ul><li>Issue of student’s confidentiality / privacy on 3 rd party </li></ul><ul><li>Possible to be partly anonymous even in public networks so get input from crowd but not expose individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit of social networking but risk of destroying structure. Keep separation of academic and social discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Need to moderate / validate discussion – or not. </li></ul>
    30. 30. Jon Rosewell & Giselle Ferreira The Open University [email_address] [email_address] <ul><li> </li></ul>
    31. 31. Quality <ul><li>Quality process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Checking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rating / voting / recommendation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Branding / provenance / reputation </li></ul></ul>