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.

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

OTTER OER, by Richard Mobbs, University of Leicester

  1. 1. OTTER Project By: Dr Richard Mobbs Beyond Distance Research Alliance Learning Technologist OTTER project [email_address]
  2. 2. Presentation outline <ul><ul><li>The OTTER context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The C O RR E evaluation framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Issues regarding transforming teaching materials into Open Educational Resources (OER). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of indicative evidence in the C O RR E evaluation framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questions and comments </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. OTTER – creating OERs <ul><li>Open </li></ul><ul><li>Transferable </li></ul><ul><li>Technology-enhanced </li></ul><ul><li>Educational </li></ul><ul><li>Resources </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>O TT E R is funded by JISC and the  Higher Education Academy </li></ul><ul><li>Project started in April 2009 and due to end in April 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>OTTER works with 9 departments in the University of Leicester to release the equivalent of 360 credits of OERs into: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jorum Open </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UoL Plone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EvidenceNet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EduCommons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>iTunes U etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>C O RR E is an evaluation framework in the development of OERs </li></ul><ul><li>Emerged from the OTTER ( O pen, T ransferable and T echnology-enabled E ducational R esources) project </li></ul>Background to O TT E R & C O RR E
  5. 5. University of Leicester Context <ul><li>Web server introduced in 1993 to support STILE Project (TLTP Phase I) </li></ul><ul><li>Tools produced for “diy” Web page creation </li></ul><ul><li>CWIS Project launched in 1996 </li></ul>
  6. 6. University of Leicester Issues <ul><li>Staff only could publish to the Web </li></ul><ul><li>No quality control </li></ul><ul><li>No transformation </li></ul><ul><li>No context </li></ul><ul><li>No idea! </li></ul>
  7. 7. Why OTTER? <ul><li>Quality OERs enhance the University's image </li></ul><ul><li>Quality OERs attract students </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge sharing across diverse contexts </li></ul>
  8. 8. CORRE model – how the team works
  9. 13. <ul><ul><li>The world is “Open” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ 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.’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(The Cape Town Declaration, 2007) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 14. The world is “Open” <ul><li>Global initiatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MIT OpenCourseWare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open University’s OpenLearn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OER Africa </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MORIL The Pan-European OER project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>China Open Res. for Educ. Consortium </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tools and services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authoring tools e.g. LAMS, GLO Maker II, Xerte and COMPENDIUM; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open licenses e.g. Creative Commons; GNU </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repositories e.g. iTunes U and OER Commons </li></ul></ul>
  11. 15. <ul><ul><li>Issues regarding the transformation of teaching materials into OERs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staff attitudes to open access ( King et al., 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transforming existing teaching materials into OERs (Lane, 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Degrees of openness ( Hodgkinson-Williams & Eve Gray, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design for openness (Boyle, 2006; McAndrew and Weller, 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open teaching (Laurillard, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluating learning objects for re-usability (Schoonenboom et al., 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open licensing for educational resources (Bissell, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustainability (Downes, 2006) </li></ul></ul>
  12. 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
  13. 17. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>CONTENT refers to teaching materials from UoL partners. </li></ul><ul><li>1. Indicative evidence for Gathering content. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Has the teaching material been used in an educational context at UoL? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there gaps in the material? e.g. missing units </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has the credit weighting been checked? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has “partner agreement” been agreed? </li></ul></ul>
  14. 18. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>Indicative evidence for screening CONTENT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What type of content is it e.g. lecture? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there editorial issues? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the language offensive? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the language formal (e.g. jargons) or informal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are changes required to the learning design? </li></ul></ul>
  15. 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
  16. 20. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>OPENNESS involves transforming teaching materials to make them p ublicly usable learning objects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Indicative evidence for assessing the pedagogic dimension of openness: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are changes required to learning goal(s)? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are changes required to learning activity(ies)? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are changes required to learning outcome(s)? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are changes required to the assessment? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is learning support required to use this material? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What level of users is the material aimed at? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 21. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><ul><li>OPENNESS: (cont). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Indicative evidence for assessing the legal dimension of openness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does the learning object contain copyright material? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is the material still in copyright? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Have 3rd party materials/IPR been duly acknowledged? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Has written permission been obtained from rights holders? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Is it cost effective to negotiate a quote or reject the material? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Has an appropriate Creative Commons license been assigned to the learning object? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 22. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><ul><li>OPENNESS: (cont). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Indicative evidence for assessing the technical dimension of openness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is the learning object (LO) available in a range of formats? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Is the learning object standalone or does it refer to related resources? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Are other tools/software required by end-user to use the LO? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Will the LO be compatible with other repositories? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Does the LO have the potential to evolve as technology develops? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>  Does the end-user require further technical help to use the LO? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 23. “ Coke scooter” by Gertrud K. - “ RR” is for REUSE/ REPURPOSE The C O RR E evaluation framework:
  20. 24. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>REUSE/REPURPOSE are focused on “adaptability” and “modification” of the OER </li></ul><ul><li>This is done through reality checking and validation by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OTTER project team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UoL academic partner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other UoL academics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External educators </li></ul></ul>
  21. 25. The C O RR E evaluation fram ework <ul><li>REUSE/RE-PURPOSE : Indicative evidence: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the CC license appropriate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How clear is the learning goal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How engaging or interactive is the learning activity? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How clear is the learning outcome? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How easy is it to navigate through the learning material? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the OER ready to be released to various repositories? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What improvements are further required if any? </li></ul></ul>
  22. 26. “ E” is for EVIDENCE The C O RR E evaluation framework Scales Of Justice by VaXzine.
  23. 27. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>Indicative evidence for tracking evidence - web statistics. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of of views </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of downloads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google analytics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web bugs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Star ratings </li></ul></ul>EVIDENCE is focused on tracking use, reuse, adoption and impact of the OER.
  24. 28. The C O RR E evaluation framework <ul><li>EVIDENCE (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>Indicative evidence for tracking evidence - web survey </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the title of the OER you downloaded? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  From which geographical region of the world are you accessing the OER? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  What changes or modifications did you make to the OER? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  What difficulties did you encounter using or accessing the OER? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  In what specific way did the OER benefit your teaching or learning? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  How would you rate the quality of the OER: “excellent”, “good”, or “poor”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  Would you recommend the OER to others? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  How can the OER be improved? </li></ul></ul>
  25. 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
  26. 30. Sustainability : The O TT E R Future <ul><li>? </li></ul><ul><li>Self-service + Library Copyright team </li></ul><ul><li>C O RR E </li></ul><ul><li>iTunes </li></ul>
  27. 31. Questions & comments on O TT E R Thank You.
  28. 32. References <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Downes , S., (2006). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects . vol 3. 2007. pp. 29 – 44. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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] </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Straub, R. , (2008). Is the World Open? Found at: 1 Nº 8. pp. 1-5. [ Accessed: 19 October 2009] </li></ul><ul><li>Yaun,L., MacNie, S., and Kraan, W., (2008). Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education . Found at : [ Accessed: 19 October 2009] </li></ul>
  29. 33. Image Acknowledgements <ul><li>All images from Flickr, published under Creative Commons licences : </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 10: “A room with a view” by loungerie - </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 11: “Coke scooter” by Gertrud K. - </li></ul><ul><li>Slide 12: “Crayon scene investigation” by adamneilward - / </li></ul>