The UK Open Educational Resources (OER) Programme, funded by HEFCE, aims to increase the availability and usage of high-quality online educational resources through 29 pilot projects. The document discusses the principles of the OER initiative, the challenges and patterns of technology and standards in resource sharing, and highlights the importance of community engagement and existing technologies. It concludes with a call to refine deposit options and enhance collaboration for future developments in open education.

1. One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open EducationOCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010R. 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

2. UKOER ProgrammeThe 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.

3. UKOER ProgrammeThe 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.

4. JISC CETISJISC CETIS is one of three JISC Innovation Support Centres (ISC), supporting the sector through: participating in standards bodies, providing community forums for sharing experiences in using particular technologies and standardsproviding specific support for JISC funded development programmes such as the UKOER programme.

5. Stereotype: the ‘Learning Object’The ‘classic’ modelthe reusable learning object (RLO). to strive to create context independent learning materialsIMS Content Packaging or ADL SCORM , IEEE LOM.Description of pedagogy in metadataVLE’s and refined search toolsExamples: Ariadne network , But real use of detailed educational fields, can be limitedseen as complex, requiring support from learning technologistsoften closed networks ~learning object economies

6. Stereotype: the ‘light touch’Blogs, web 2.0 tools, websitesMinimal metadata often author, title, licenseoften applied at site level Frequent use of CC licenses (often integrated with tools)RSSEnthusiastic individuals Examples:ButCan be ‘closed’/ unknown groups of peopleDiscoverability of specific items / unknown items can be tricky

7. The UKOER approach

8. Guidelines“any system capable of delivering content on the open web”Strongly encouraged to use platforms that can create RSS for collectionsUtilise existing technologies - not developSome descriptive information required

9. Required descriptive setTag: UKOERTitleAuthorDateURLFile format (auto)File size (auto)

10. Recommended descriptive setLanguageSubject classificationsKeywordsTagsCommentsDescription

11. Descriptive set (2)

12. Hoped for outcomesInstitutional changeRelease of OERsFreedom of choice allows opportunity to assess:SelectionSuitabilityImpactSustainability

13. Factors: CETISSeminar and presentationsEncouragement to consider local resource description requirementsPresented context of wider OER initiativesDid not promote any particular system, standard, or other approachInfluence of CETIS’ experience with standards

14. Factors: System ChoiceSingle biggest factor: native standards supported/ implemented in the system.Pattern somewhat visible in project bids/plans emerged clearly in technical conversationsTrue for both LO repositories and for web2.0 toolsPartially result of explicit prohibition of developmentSome exceptions: Support for multiple standardsCreation of mappings

15. Factors: project team backgroundParallel to influence of system choice, teams will use what they knowbut lesser influence:No budget for new systemsThough unlikely, staff turnover more likely than system turnover

16. Factors: role of network/ communitySome communities have entry requirementsBut relatively few projects engaged – most had existing connections, or had deliberate aim to engage.Some examples:OpenSpires – Matterhorn, iTunesU, and moreBerlin – OCWC RSS [predating programme but revised]

17. Factors: aggregator servicesDiscovery toolsOften-based on OAI-PMH and RSSBut not as much of an influence as expectedNote: aggregation does not need to dictate local standards; mapping is often possible, but system dependentOne major exception...

18. Factors: iTunesUParticipation in iTunesU isby agreement with Apple, specific and somewhat idiosyncratic metadataset granularity of materials associated cover images Issues around openness (license, software, reuse)Massive draw for faculty contributionsAside: institutional channels and individual channels

19. Factors: JorumOpenNational repository for learning materialsLaunch of JorumOpenSlightly different descriptive requirements to programmeInfluence of deposit toolsVersion 1Version 2Bulk optionsInfluence of perceptions on both platform and standardInfluence on international participation

20. Patterns of use: one standard?Is there [with apologies to Tolkien]: ‘One [standard] to rule them all,One [standard] to find them,One [standard] to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them’?20

21. Patterns of use: preliminary notesData gathered from technical review calls as part of programme support All 29 projects recorded. Projects may occur more than once in any given graph if they use more than one of the technologies listed.The graphs refer to the number of platforms that support a given standard; they do not refer to or imply active use of the standard.CMS refers to Content Management System and not to Course Management System.The data itself is available from the tool CETIS project monitoring tool, PROD. http://prod.cetis.ac.uk tag ukoer

22. Patterns: system type

23. Patterns specific choices

24. Patterns: descriptive standards

25. Patterns: dissemination standards

26. Patterns: packaging formats

27. Patterns: resource typesPDFDOCPPTSWFQTIMP3MP4FLVJPEGPNGSVG WMV OGGWAVAVIWMF AAC?

28. Impact of choicesExisting technologies usedDiverse technical responses to the challenge of managing and sharing OERs. A mixture of elearning platforms, repositories, and innovative approaches to sharing have been used.The standards being used are often embedded in systems and their selection of a standard is often derivativeThe pilot programme points to ways forward to using both web2.0 applications and digital repositories for sharing and managing OERs.

29. Impact of choices (2)Projects have chosen multiple platforms to support different functions such as: preservation, streaming, marketing, advocacy.Choices made mostly reflect an emphasis on resource management and sharing; few projects are using technology that supports course delivery. Tendancy to focus on other academics, rather than students, as the consumers of the materials produced.Although many projects can produce RSS feeds, the ability to use these feeds to support any form of bulk import into JorumOpen has been problematic as the content and format of these feeds varies dramatically.

30. Impact of choices: aggregation (in JorumOpen)Author names have been recorded differently.The JorumOpen deposit tool will provide some form of standardization by requiring a minimal set of descriptive fields.The infrastructure of JorumOpen will be able to generate some of the required information, e.g. file format, size, etc; across the set of resources it holds. The redevelopment of the deposit tool has resulted in some issues regarding the inclusion of contributing institution details. As a result the author field of some resources will also include institutional information.Project led creation of a short cataloguing guide to address issues they noted. (UK Centre for Bioscience, 2010).

31. Next stepsInvestigate details of deposit optionsInforming next programme and future workXcri use/ course codesWork with JorumOpen

32. Further Informationhttp://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Educational_Content_OERhttp://jisc.cetis.ac.uk//topic/oerContact detailsrobert.robertson@strath.ac.uks.macneill@strath.ac.uklmc@strath.ac.ukL.Yuan@bolton.ac.ukphilb@icbl.hw.ac.uk