Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projects, OCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010.
R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open EducationR. John Robertson
R. John Robertson1, Lorna Campbell1, Phil Barker2, Li Yuan3, and Sheila MacNeill1
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
Drawing on our experience of supporting a nationwide Open Educational Resources programme (the UKOER programme), this presentation will consider the diverse range of approaches to describing OERs that have emerged across the programme and their impact on resource sharing, workflows, and an aggregate view of the resources.
Due to the diverse nature of the projects in the programme, ranging from individual educators to discipline-based consortia and institutions, it was apparent that no one technical or descriptive solution would fit all. Consequently projects were mandated to supply only a limited amount of descriptive information (programme tag, author, title, date, url, file format, file size, rights) with some additional information suggested (language, subject classifications, keywords, tags, comments, description). Projects were free to choose how this information should be encoded (if at all), stored, and shared.
In response, the projects have taken many different approaches to the description and management of resources. These range from using traditional highly structured and detailed metadata standards to approaches using whatever descriptions are supported by particular web2.0 applications. This experimental approach to resource description offers the wider OER community an opportunity to examine and assess the implications of different strategies for resource description and management
This paper illustrates a number of examples of projects’ approaches to description, noting the workflows and effort involved. We will consider the relationship of the choice of tool (repository, web2.0 application, VLE) to the choice of standards; and the relationship between local requirements and those of the wider community.
We will consider the impact of those choices on the dissemination and discoverability of resources. For example, the implications of resource description choices for discovery services which draw on multiple sources of OERs.
Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projectsR. John Robertson
R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
This paper examines CETIS experience of supporting a nationwide programme to release Open Educational Resources (the JISC Higher Education Academy UKOER Pilot Programme ). We consider how our model of support could inform others and be adapted to encourage sustainable technical support networks for Open Course Ware initiatives. As a national initiative involving universities throughout the UK, the UKOER programme involved a diverse range of OER providers, including individual educators, discipline-based consortia and institutions. Given this diversity it was recognised from the outset that no single technical solution would fit all projects, and therefore no specific tools, descriptive standards, exchange or dissemination mechanisms were mandated (apart from a requirement that the resources produced be represented in a national repository of learning materials ). In supporting this programme we have had to address diverse approaches and communities and it is likely that any similar pan-institutional initiative for supporting the release of OERs would face similar challenges.
Our approach to programme support has sought to move from the detail of specific support issues towards underlying support principles; thereby anticipating other issues and promoting good practice.
Our method has been: to provoke conversation through technical presentations and discussion opportunities at meetings or through blog posts; to investigate the technical choices made by individual projects through technical review conversations and record summary details of these conversations publicly online through an interface supporting searching and browsing; and to respond to issues arising from these calls or from project blogs.
In considering how this approach could be used more widely we will look at the challenges of working openly, the organisational overhead of this approach, its adaptability, and the role we think it has played in supporting the management and dissemination of OERs for this programme.
One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open EducationR. John Robertson
R. John Robertson1, Lorna Campbell1, Phil Barker2, Li Yuan3, and Sheila MacNeill1
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
Drawing on our experience of supporting a nationwide Open Educational Resources programme (the UKOER programme), this presentation will consider the diverse range of approaches to describing OERs that have emerged across the programme and their impact on resource sharing, workflows, and an aggregate view of the resources.
Due to the diverse nature of the projects in the programme, ranging from individual educators to discipline-based consortia and institutions, it was apparent that no one technical or descriptive solution would fit all. Consequently projects were mandated to supply only a limited amount of descriptive information (programme tag, author, title, date, url, file format, file size, rights) with some additional information suggested (language, subject classifications, keywords, tags, comments, description). Projects were free to choose how this information should be encoded (if at all), stored, and shared.
In response, the projects have taken many different approaches to the description and management of resources. These range from using traditional highly structured and detailed metadata standards to approaches using whatever descriptions are supported by particular web2.0 applications. This experimental approach to resource description offers the wider OER community an opportunity to examine and assess the implications of different strategies for resource description and management
This paper illustrates a number of examples of projects’ approaches to description, noting the workflows and effort involved. We will consider the relationship of the choice of tool (repository, web2.0 application, VLE) to the choice of standards; and the relationship between local requirements and those of the wider community.
We will consider the impact of those choices on the dissemination and discoverability of resources. For example, the implications of resource description choices for discovery services which draw on multiple sources of OERs.
Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projectsR. John Robertson
R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
This paper examines CETIS experience of supporting a nationwide programme to release Open Educational Resources (the JISC Higher Education Academy UKOER Pilot Programme ). We consider how our model of support could inform others and be adapted to encourage sustainable technical support networks for Open Course Ware initiatives. As a national initiative involving universities throughout the UK, the UKOER programme involved a diverse range of OER providers, including individual educators, discipline-based consortia and institutions. Given this diversity it was recognised from the outset that no single technical solution would fit all projects, and therefore no specific tools, descriptive standards, exchange or dissemination mechanisms were mandated (apart from a requirement that the resources produced be represented in a national repository of learning materials ). In supporting this programme we have had to address diverse approaches and communities and it is likely that any similar pan-institutional initiative for supporting the release of OERs would face similar challenges.
Our approach to programme support has sought to move from the detail of specific support issues towards underlying support principles; thereby anticipating other issues and promoting good practice.
Our method has been: to provoke conversation through technical presentations and discussion opportunities at meetings or through blog posts; to investigate the technical choices made by individual projects through technical review conversations and record summary details of these conversations publicly online through an interface supporting searching and browsing; and to respond to issues arising from these calls or from project blogs.
In considering how this approach could be used more widely we will look at the challenges of working openly, the organisational overhead of this approach, its adaptability, and the role we think it has played in supporting the management and dissemination of OERs for this programme.
QA in e-Learning and Open Educational Resources (OER)Jon Rosewell
Introductory slides for a workshop on updating the e-learning quality assurance benchmarks of the E-xcellence NEXT project http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellencelabel
Authors: Chiara Sancin, Valentina Castello, Vittorio Dell’Aiuto, Daniela Di Genova.
This paper focuses on research themes related to t-learning applications. It particularly deals with digital divide and social inclusion issues and the most relevant features of t-learning.
Lilac 2012 Essential information skills for researchers: A collaborative proj...Chris Bark
This presentation gives an overview of a project involving four institutions: Loughborough, Nottingham, De Montfort and Coventry Universities to create an open source repurposable information skills tutorial appropriate for early career researchers. It covers the rationale for undertaking the project, the proposed content, the research conducted and methodologies used which informed the design and final content of the online module.
The module that has been developed is called: Dissemination of your research and includes the following units:
Journals and journal articles
Other forms of publishing
Journal bibliometrics
Author bibliometrics
Networking
The presentation then moves on to look at in some depth the benefits of working in a consortium but also the challenges the group faced as a result of working as a collaboration.
Developing patterns in technical approaches for Open Educational Resources. R. John Robertson and Lorna Campbell, & Phil Barker
JISC CETIS. Presentation at OER 11, Manchester, May 11th 2011
Slides for talk on Addressing The Limitations Of Open Standards given at Museums & the Web 2007 conference.
See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/mw-2007/talk-standards/
QA in e-Learning and Open Educational Resources (OER)Jon Rosewell
Introductory slides for a workshop on updating the e-learning quality assurance benchmarks of the E-xcellence NEXT project http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellencelabel
Authors: Chiara Sancin, Valentina Castello, Vittorio Dell’Aiuto, Daniela Di Genova.
This paper focuses on research themes related to t-learning applications. It particularly deals with digital divide and social inclusion issues and the most relevant features of t-learning.
Lilac 2012 Essential information skills for researchers: A collaborative proj...Chris Bark
This presentation gives an overview of a project involving four institutions: Loughborough, Nottingham, De Montfort and Coventry Universities to create an open source repurposable information skills tutorial appropriate for early career researchers. It covers the rationale for undertaking the project, the proposed content, the research conducted and methodologies used which informed the design and final content of the online module.
The module that has been developed is called: Dissemination of your research and includes the following units:
Journals and journal articles
Other forms of publishing
Journal bibliometrics
Author bibliometrics
Networking
The presentation then moves on to look at in some depth the benefits of working in a consortium but also the challenges the group faced as a result of working as a collaboration.
Developing patterns in technical approaches for Open Educational Resources. R. John Robertson and Lorna Campbell, & Phil Barker
JISC CETIS. Presentation at OER 11, Manchester, May 11th 2011
Slides for talk on Addressing The Limitations Of Open Standards given at Museums & the Web 2007 conference.
See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/mw-2007/talk-standards/
One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open EducationR. John Robertson
One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open Education, OCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010
R. John Robertson1, Lorna Campbell1, Phil Barker2, Li Yuan3, and Sheila MacNeill1 1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
WeGov presentation at eChallenges Conference 2010WeGov project
WeGov project was presented within a specific session of the eChallenges 2010 Conference, on the 27th-29th of October 2010, in Warsaw, Poland. The goal of e-2010 was to stimulate rapid take-up of Research and Technology Development (RTD) results by industry and in particular SMEs, and help open up the European Research Area (ERA) to the rest of the world. At the Conference’s Session with the title “Session 8b: eDemocracy & eParticipation”, GFI made a presentation regarding the WeGov project.
CREW (Collaborative Research Events on the Web) aims to improve access to research event content by capturing and publishing the scholarly communication that occurs at events like conferences and workshops. This is a Virtual Research Environment funded by JISC within the UK.
This slide show describes release 5 of the development. See site: http://www.crew-vre.net/
Cultivating Sustainable Software For ResearchNeil Chue Hong
Keynote given at the NSF Cyberinfrastructure Software and Sustainability Workshop, March 26th-27th 2009, Indianapolis.
Exploration of software sustainability based on experiences from UK.
Improving usage and impact of digitised resourcesAlastair Dunning
A presentation from the JISC Programme Meeting for its Content Programme for 2011 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/digitisation/econtent11.aspx
Similar to Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projects (20)
Reflecting evidence and integration: highlighting a spectrum of ePortfolio us...R. John Robertson
"Reflecting evidence and integration: highlighting a spectrum of ePortfolio use at UW" R. John Robertson, ePortfolio and Online Learning Support, UW-Oshkosh and Saundra Solum, Instructional Technology Coordinator, UW-La Crosse. LTDC West
April 25th 2013
One Session Wonder presentation to kick off a discussion of Digital Humanities in courses. [version 1, it needs revision, and more examples/ interactivity]
Reference copy of some thoughts about engaging students in online learning, slides for a professional development workshop. first time talking about this so there's lots in these that I would now adapt/ develop further
Presentation given at Seattle Pacific University during 2011 Global Symposium : Educational Innovations and Reform in Countries around the World.
Presenting some of the way openness (in particular open education) can act as an institutional catalyst for innovation and reform
Is Open Education between the Cathedral and the Bazaar?: m?: the promise and pitfalls of borrowing models and metaphors for the OER community. R. John Robertson and Lorna Campbell , Phil Barker, and Li Yuan JISC CETIS
Presentation at OER 11, Manchester, May 11th 2011
Librarians and Open Educational Resources: a match made in...R. John Robertson
Learn to Share to Learn,A joint conference from the South Western Regional Library Service and the JISC Regional Support Centre South West.Taunton Rugby Club March 23rd 2011
Librarians and Open Educational Resources: a match made in...
Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projects
1. Approaches to supporting Open Educational Resource projectsOCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010 R. John Robertson1, Sheila MacNeill1, Phil Barker2, Lorna Campbell1 and Li Yuan3 1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University, 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
2. Overview Aim To consider the model of support used in the UKOER programme, the value it adds, and consider how it might be used elsewhere Outline Introductions UKOER Programme One model of support Assessing the model
3. UKOER Programme The Open Educational Resources Programme is a collaboration between the JISC and the Higher Education Academy in the UK. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has provided an initial £5.7 million of funding, (April 2009 to March 2010) which will explore how to expand the open availability and use of free, high quality online educational resources. The programme will support universities and colleges in exploring processes and policies, intellectual property rights, cultural issues, technical requirements and data management issues associated with the release of existing resources as OERs.
4. UKOER Programme The UK OER programme consists of 29 pilot projects divided into three categories: individual (i.e. personal) projects (8); institutional projects (7) multi-institutional subject-based consortium projects (14). Support for the programme is being provided by a number of existing JISC services and the Open University (UK) Score project.
5. JISC CETIS JISC CETIS is one of three JISC Innovation Support Centres (ISC). We provide advice to the UK Higher and Post-16 Education sectors on the development and use of educational technology and standards. through: participating in standards bodies, providing community forums for sharing experiences in using particular technologies and standards through providing specific support for JISC funded development programmes such as the UKOER programme.
6. UKOER opportunities and support challenges No mandated descriptive standards or exchange mechanisms and projects were free to choose the delivery platforms, tools or technologies that best suited them A basic set of descriptive requirements was mandated (Campbell 2009), and the use of syndication formats encouraged.
7. UKOER opportunities and support challenges All OERs also to be represented in Jorum, the UK national repository of teaching and learning materials. The programme also provided a catalyst for the launch of the new JorumOpen service. Previously use of the Jorum repository had required subscription and license agreements. A programme support for legal, technical and community issues was provided by a number of existing JISC services and the OU (UK) Score project.
8. UKOER opportunities and support challenges This approach aimed to give projects the greatest flexibility to create and disseminate OERs. It also provided an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of a wide variety of approaches and, in the longer term, their sustainability.
9. Principles of CETIS programme support Support for UKOER uses models of support we provide to other JISC development programmes. Treat the programme as a whole Engage with individual projects but use specific issues to also produce general advice Create a high level overview of the technical approaches, technologies and standards in use within and across funded programmes. Synthesise, reflect, and make recommendations.
10. Support functions steer (the programme development) gather (information from projects) enable (projects to achieve their goals) inform (projects) review and collate (information about the projects' technical choices) connect (projects to each other and other initiatives) represent (the programme to other initiatives) disseminate (information about the programme) synthesise and critique (the findings from the projects).
11. A sketch of the past 18 months Programme scoping, contributing to bid marking Programme meetings Technical review calls Online seminars Blogging Synthesis
12. Programme Development Tools used: teleconferencing, email, CETIS blogs, presentations Support functions: Steer, Inform CETIS provided advice to JISC on the possible approaches to managing and releasing OERs that the programme could take. This work then informed the wider community about the technical and resource description requirements of the programme. For example, Campbell (Technical, 2009). This scoping work culminated in a presentation at the programme briefing day and related blog posts. For example, Campbell (Metadata, 2009).
13. Communicating with projects Tools used: Twitter, email, project blogs, newsreaders, Yahoo Pipes, meetings, online conferencing tools. Support functions: Gather, Inform, Enable Meetings Email lists for each strand (individual, institutional, and subject-based consortium). Later in the programme a master list was also set up but tends to be administrative Twitter The programme also encouraged the use of Twitter (through specifying a tag #ukoer).
14. Communicating with projects (2) Blogs Project blogs were adopted by some projects providing news and discussing issues Feed Readers Allowed monitoring of blogs without visiting them. For example The JISC programme manager for the institutional strand set up http://www.netvibes.com/hwilliamson#oer Custom Feeds Using Yahoo Pipes, created a number of custom feeds to filter the combined feeds from the project blogs for particular keywords (such as metadata).
15. Technical Review Calls Tools used: Teleconferencing, Skype, Email, PROD (online database) Support functions: Review, Enable, Inform, Collate, Connect Prior to the call, information from the project plan was used to create a draft entry in CETIS’ online database for project technical information. Conversations using a teleconference service. (the audio quality of Skype if multi-site). when used Skype‘s chat window helped share links. Do you know about? We pointed out other relevant work and possible connections. For example, making sure that those producing RSS feeds knew about some of the aggregator services for their feeds.
18. Following up issues Tools used: email, teleconferencing, CETIS blogs Support functions: Enable, Review When challenges or problems emerging from calls, meetings, blog posts, interim reports or referral Investigate issues and discuss Listen to projects and advise (not tell in keeping with programme approach) Typical issues included: commenting on application profiles, advising about granularity, detailed technical support issues -> making connections
19. Ongoing Advice Tools used: online conferencing, CETIS blogs, CETIS conference. Support functions: Inform, Enable, Connect, Gather. CETIS ran two of the monthly online meetings (one on metadata and resource description the other on resource tracking). using the Elluminate online conferencing tool. These meetings consisted of a presentation, gathering feedback on issues raised through synchronous polls, and text and voice conferencing. CETIS continued to provide advice through blogging about these emerging issues. A workshop at the CETIS 2009 conference to gather key issues : Twitter backchannel for the workshop session the questions emerging were recorded and blogged unedited immediately subsequent synthesis
20. Representing and promoting Tools used: PROD Support functions: Represent, Disseminate By analysing technical review conversations and ongoing engagement with projects CETIS has been able to gather a comprehensive overview of the technical choices made across the programme. This has enabled CETIS to present an overview of the technical approaches to other interested communities (Robertson, MIT, 2009) and to represent technical issues emerging across the programme to funders such as JISC and to other support services such as JorumOpen.
21. Synthesis Tools used: PROD, CETIS blogs, presentations, CETIS wiki. Support functions: Disseminate, Synthesis, Critique. As the programme draws to an end CETIS are analysing information stored in PROD and the blogs about the use of particular standards and technologies in the programme. Information gathered on the CETIS wiki and blogged producing a series of more reflective blog posts official documentation including a final project report that will include recommendations for similar programmes in the future.
22. Initial Reflections and Added Value As outlined earlier the UKOER programme allowed projects a great deal of flexibility in choosing their technical infrastructure and approaches to resource description. This will be discussed in more detail tomorrow, but: There has been a great deal of diversity in the strategies adopted by projects. All the projects have developed technical approaches to allow them to manage and distribute their materials successfully. The effectiveness of the support provided and evaluating how the model might be used elsewhere is of course a different question. CETIS have received positive feedback throughout the programme Useful to consider the specific functions outlined and consider what could or could not be done without a dedicated programme support.
23. Steer Provide advice on scoping the programme and the technical approach taken. it appears that the planned approach has worked Without a dedicated project, expertise could be called in as required (but with associated cost). The support project allows the expertise that shaped the call to continue to be involved.
24. Gather The widespread use of Twitter and blogs throughout the programme has created an interactive environment for spontaneous discussion and dissemination. However, : much of the conversation on Twitter is, to a degree, transitory – in a way that email is not. Those not actively engaging with Twitter or email may be left out of the loop and feel disengaged Without a dedicated project, similar tools could help projects be aware of each other’s work. However, technical conversations are more likely to be shared publicly if there is someone actively “listening”. The support project adds active and informed engagement with channels of communication.
25. Enable Considering the provision of: technical questions from interim reports followed up two online and one face to face conference sessions conference sessions and briefing days amplified (through twitter coverage and blog commentary) blog posts Without a support project: expert consultants could be used for specific events, (associated cost implications) Projects could, and do, amplify events and write and blog about their work and wider issues. (dedicated support model may provide more objective commentary)
26. Inform The support provided: inform projects about relevant services, applications and technical developments. (The challenge is knowing what is relevant and worth disseminating). Share innovative practices emerging from within the programme (around Search Engine Optimization and the APIs for particular Web2.0 applications) across the programme and beyond. Without a support project this could be addressed through active community engagement from the projects within the programme using with suitable channels (some overhead for projects) projects developing an awareness of what was happening outside the programme (greater overhead for projects) However, there would be an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio and the support project adds dedicated resource and staff who are aware of “the bigger picture”
27. Review and Collate The support provided was: Technical review conversations held with all the projects. Searchable overview of technical issues created. Further email exchanges and calls about particular issues. Blog posts connected to the programme. Issues: administrative overhead of coordinating the technical calls chronological spread of the technical review calls Without a support project: It would difficult without central co-ordination, dedicated time, and a system such as PROD. A technical peer review process could be used, but high degree of coordination and commitment would be required.
28. Connect The support provided was to link up projects using similar technological choices. Issues time lag between technical review calls. Without a support project: In the context of very active community engagement from the projects some serendipitous connections are likely to have happened. (A support project removes some of the luck and provides a centralised overview).
29. Represent, Disseminate The support provided: Support JISC in liaising with service providers in the OER field Promote activities and concerns of the UKOER projects Present at conferences, publish and blog posts. Without a support project Some of the above would have happened but it is unlikely that any individual project would have had a similar influence or overview. Programme-wide synthesis and dissemination would have occurred to some degree but with less of a technical view The support project adds an objective programme level overview and a recognised point of contact with a program wide remit.
30. Synthesise and Critique The support provided Creation of web based resources, guidance and PROD entries. (alongside separate general synthesis and evaluation project) Without a support project Consultants commissioned to provide a general programme level synthesis could also have been resourced to create a technical one. A support project adds continuity throughout the programme lifecycle and specialist technical support for the general synthesis and evaluation project.
31. Issues: Cost Utilizing existing services and projects the costs involved in running support services are mostly staff related (as the infrastructure used was either free or already in place). However, the service is provided at a cost equivalent to that of another project releasing OERs. We suggest that: The value added by a dedicated support project provides a number of valuable outputs and outcomes for the programme to balance forgoing one extra development project. Central support is likely to be more cost effective than individual projects seeking (and often paying) for similar advice and guidance.
32. Issues: Challenge of Openness Open isn’t easy The programme has wrestled with the process of the changes in understanding that go with using open licences. Some projects engaged with the challenges around working openly. Blogs to publicly think through some of their project issues not just to disseminate news. Both uses are valuable, but from the point of view of providing support the former is priceless. Private space is needed to discuss issues and the programme has used closed email lists. However, it is surprising no public list for the discussion of issues around Open Education has been adopted or created by the programme.
33. Ongoing Questions Concerning our support role and the technical aspects of creating and sharing OERs: Has the programme enabled a change of culture and practice to allow the facilitated release of OERs by UK HE institutions without seed funding? Is more centrally provided funding needed? If so, what are the key areas for development? How can we ensure that the lessons and experiences of this programme are effectively shared with the wider OER community? Is it possible to maintain and grow the sense of community fostered through the programme beyond the funding period without some kind of dedicated co-ordination?
Please note: Logos may be under different licences – their respective owners policies should be consulted before their use.
Please note: Logos may be under different licences – their respective owners policies should be consulted before their use.
http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Educational_Content_OERhttp://jisc.cetis.ac.uk//topic/oerContact detailsrobert.robertson at strath.ac.ukLmc at strath.ac.ukPhilb at icbl.hw.ac.uk