OER Synthesis and Evaluation / Report Introduction
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.


Report Introduction

Page history last edited by Lou McGill 9 years, 11 months ago

In June 2009, JISC and the HE Academy awarded funding to Glasgow Caledonian University to examine their jointly funded OER Pilot programme; bringing together and analysing the activity of all the individual projects to gain a greater understanding of the release of Open Educational Resources. The OER Pilot programme enabled the large scale release of OER with a view to the creation of a mass of released materials and sustainability of OER release. The synthesis & evaluation project engaged with participants in the OER Pilot programme throughout to enable early identification of support needs as well as to gather information. The Synthesis & evaluation project therefore ran in parallel with the Pilot Programme.


The project team developed a Generic framework to capture common issues related to OER release (barriers and enablers), cultural differences across the sector: what norms, roles, rules and reward structures foster effective OER practice in differing institutional and consortia climates, and ‘strand specific’ content related to the context: individuals, subject communities, institutions. The framework was also used to support project and programme evaluation and this is described in detail in the Project method and approaches section.


The framework has enabled collation of evidence and outputs in the following areas which are detailed in this report:

  • Approaches to open content

  • Developing, managing and sharing OERs

  • Expertise

  • Business cases and benefits realisation

  • Cultural issues

  • Roles, rewards and division of labour added as is in final framework document and impt

  • Legal issues

  • Technical and hosting issues

  • Quality issues

  • Pedagogy and end-use issues (not a primary focus of evaluation)



Evaluation & synthesis was an iterative, two-way process and this was a successful means of ensuring that projects contributed to the development of the framework throughout. The synthesis & evaluation team worked closely with the programme management team, the support teams, the project teams and their evaluators. This closeness enabled immediate feedback to support teams on needs identified during ongoing synthesis and evaluation enabling projects to receive guidance in areas that they may not have identified for themselves.


The framework proved to be a successful means of gathering information from the projects. Strand specific frameworks emerged which some projects used  to map their activities, final outcomes and outputs. These stand frameworks fed back into the generic framework and also in the final Pilot programme synthesis framework.


Strand-specific evaluation support addressed how different communities and cultures are progressing towards openness in their shared practice. Mixed methods were recruited to examine social, technical, pedagogical and legal / organisational issues in each strand, and provide a synthesis account detailing barriers and opportunities for change. A set of materials were produced by Helen Beetham to support project evaluation activities. Dialogue with projects took a range of formats, including online and face to face workshops, direct email and telephone conversations, and this provided an opportunity to inform and engage projects with the framework as a tool to support evaluation.


This final synthesis report includes recommendations to the funders and to the stakeholders represented in the three strands of the programme, and a version of the framework tool for use by the sector to audit progress towards more open practices around educational resources.


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.