This page is part of the Phase2 OMAC strand synthesis

This section draws together what projects have said and is in mainly in their own words. These findings have been synthesised across into the main report findings pages. Coloured excerpts are from project final reports - bold emphasis is mine (LM) to highlight key points. Coloured excerpts are from project final reports or evaluation reports EDOR (EDOR final report), ASSAP, IPR4EE, CPD4HE CPD4HE final report , DELILA, Open for Business, ACTOR, Learning to Teach Inclusively, RLT for PA

How easily the OERs can be mapped to the HEA professional standards framework and what are the gaps?

Several projects had already mapped their proposed resources to the framework and modified this during the project.

Comments about mapping include:

• OERs can be mapped in several ways.
• CPD4HE produced a second map relating to two priority areas - Digital and Information Literacies and Discipline-Specific Learning & Teaching. These also might help people aiming for accreditation against the UKPSF. 
• DELILA carried out mapping work to cross tabulate the SCONUL 7 Pillars of Information Literacy (SCONUL, 2007) and the FutureLab (2010) Digital Literacy model with the UK Professional Standards framework (HEA, 2011) revealed that while digital and information literacy was not explicit in the UKPSF, they did map well. In fact the team concluded that digital and information literacy underpinned much of the UKPSF.
• Many of the CPD4HE resources ask learners to create outputs (usually written). In the programmes from which the resources are drawn, these outputs contribute towards assessment, and hence UK PSF accreditation. An additional guidance document, showing in more detail how these pieces of writing might be submitted as evidence for accreditation could be developed and would probably be useful to learners. CPD4HE
• Mapping to the UKPSF allows for ease of integration within accredited programmes of teaching & learning or academic practice in higher education. (Dundee) O4B

Changing UKPSF's were noted as a challenge

• A number of the frameworks used in DELILA are being / have been revised. These include the UKPSF (HEA, 2011) and the SCONUL 7 pillars (SCONUL, 2011). Whilst the DELILA mappings remain useful as exemplars – changing frameworks may mean that new mappings need to be over-laid. (DELILA)
• A key aspect of the project was its relationship to the UKPSF.  There was a delay in the mapping exercise due to the fact that the new UKPSF was not ready before the project end.  We chose to defer the final detailed mapping of all available resources until the new framework is in place and this would become part of the planned sustainability process. In the meantime we explored alternative approaches to mapping so we were ready to do so when the new framework was available. ACTOR
• ACTOR mapped a sample set of resources from each partner against the framework in order to help guide its effective use on both accredited and non-accredited programmes. A sample set of resources (one from each partner) was mapped against the framework in order to help guide its effective use on both accredited and non-accredited programmes. Whilst we have not attempted to generate resources to cover all aspects of the UKPSF we have sought to produce materials for areas of the framework where there were felt to be significant gaps.  ACTOR
• We had already mapped our resources to the UKPSF and we simply modified our original mapping. However, we would say that our mapping represents just one reading and that others are possible. We have provided a second mapping document that relates our resources to the two priority areas for our project, Digital and Information Literacies and Discipline-Specific Learning & Teaching. These also might help people aiming for accreditation against the UKPSF. Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/calt/cpd4he/resources  CPD4HE 
• The mapping work to cross tabulate the SCONUL 7 Pillars of Information Literacy (SCONUL, 2007) and the FutureLab (2010) Digital Literacy model with the UK Professional Standards framework (HEA, 2011) revealed that while digital and information literacy was not explicit in the UKPSF, they did map well. In fact the team concluded that digital and information literacy underpinned much of the UKPSF. DELILA 
• A number of the frameworks used in DELILA are being / have been revised. These include the UKPSF (HEA, 2011) and the SCONUL 7 pillars (SCONUL, 2011). Whilst the DELILA mappings remain useful as exemplars – changing frameworks may mean that new mappings need to be over-laid. 

How far does the subject discipline/theme impact on the release of existing resources compared with the release of new resources?

Projects have not necessarily addressed this directly but the nature of the subject area can make the release of existing materials more challengeing. eg. healthcare resources containing sensitive patient information). The level of effort required to release such materials may mean new resources are more realistic and financially viable.

• The decision to target existing resources was driven by the level of funding rather than the discipline or theme. However the boundaries between new and existing in our discipline are not clear cut. Our project plan stated that we would release existing resources but the process of turning them into OERs has transformed them to a point where some might well be considered new resources. In any case, where do “new” resources come from? In some disciplines, technology has only recently made it possible to create certain kinds of resources but this is not generally the case in ours, where many resources are text-based and draw on other texts such as published research. CPD4HE
• Another boundary that is blurred in our discipline is between resources and guidance materials. For example, we have created audio commentaries on many of the resources; the primary purpose was to give more information about how the resources might be used but it might well be that a conversation about educational values, key skills or academic literacies could be used as a learning resource. This is something we only realised through creating the  recordings. CPD4HE
•  The long term usability of OER in healthcare education has been affected by changes in policy, technology and public opinion whereby some shared resources containing recordings of people (which complied with good-practice guidelines at the time of collection e.g. CyberAnatomy at Newcastle University, and the Bristol Biomed Image Archive) have since been ‘locked down’ to local virtual learning environments (VLEs) or completely withdrawn due to concerns firstly about the clarity of how the people depicted wanted their recordings to be used, and secondly about the clarity of ownership and licensing of copyright. ACTOR
  
• A very wide range of awareness of the issues involved when recordings of patients are used in education, as opposed to the patient’s care programme or in research;
• Clinical providers do not feel that they have responsibility for or control over the issues that arise once recordings of their patients are transferred into the HE sector;
• Universities are unaware of the risks posed by clinicians employed by the clinical provider, and with an academic honorary contract to deliver education in non-clinical (i.e. educational) settings, with materials which may have unclear consent;
• Many clinical providers declare ownership/copyright of recordings of their patients acquired on their premises, but do not have pre-written licensing agreements;
• Staff in universities are not always able to keep track of every project in their institution that involves the acquisition and/or use of patient recordings;
• It is currently very difficult for any teacher to find out what responsibilities, to the patient, to clinical providers and to their medical school, they are taking on as an individual;
• There is no easily accessible source of information, policy documentation or guidelines;
• Students and teachers increasingly use pre-existing patient images from the web without adequately considering its copyright or how it was consented.
• Here we argue that copyright and consent should be treated separately, necessitating the development of a ‘Consent Commons’ framework to support digital professionalism recognising the rights of people to be treated fairly and with respect. This will help institutions to develop standardised policies and practice (Huston, 2004) around the creation and deployment of educational resources containing recordings of people, and better manage legal risks (OOER, 2010). It balances a desire for sustainable open access with protecting patients' and other peoples’ rights and expectations of how recordings of them, especially if captured in a clinical setting, may be used. Proposing a consent commoms in open education paper  ACTOR

Is the model cost effective?

• We need to know the benefits before we can answer this. The producers have benefitted from the process of reviewing their materials with a new audience in mind. The peer review that is part of the development process is likely to improve the quality of the resources. We may benefit from their further development by others. The main cost has been staff time. We have tried to make the working process sustainable by individual teachers, particularly in relation to rights clearance and sharing via Jorum. It is difficult to quantify costs or benefits in such a small project.  CPD4HE

 What kind of OERs are appropriate for the subject discipline/theme. (eg affecting format, levels of granularity, etc,)?

Formats

• Videos of authentic learning and teaching experiences – raises a quality issue “So whilst there was some loss in sound quality and some of the videos are not of polished, TV quality, they do faithfully represent the messiness of the real world (see also Appendix for External Evaluator’s report) and provide authenticity.  We took the view that any loss of sound quality would be more than compensated by the addition of subtitles, that also served to reinforce the inclusive principle of universal design i.e. subtitles help all users.” Learning to work inclusively
• We are mindful that the normal currency of video clips is short (5 years maximum). We endeavour to continue to gather video clips that could potentially replace the existing videos embedded in the module and to add to the resource in Jorum.  We aim to do that through the assessment within the Learning to Teach Inclusively module itself and via our own use of it in our PG Cert Academic Practice.
• The resources are varied and wide ranging: they include videos of live English teaching; videos and audio of interviews with English teachers; examples of quizzes; Video clips; sample essays; examples of handouts; plans of seminars and workshops; quotations from students; student diaries; and links to websites. In general, the materials are dense with subject-specific examples of teaching resources and activities, with a wealth of ideas about how to make use of them. ASSAP
• Users welcome material presented in familiar file-formats. ORIC

Generic vs subject specific resources

 Many projects expressed a desire to make their generic resources subject specific - responding to feedback from stakeholders that these were more highly valued

• One area for further development would be to produce a version of the module by subject. The current version is generic and the video clips and scenarios draw on a range of subjects to illustrate aspects of inclusive practice. We feel there is a demand for subject specific resource that would resonate with those whose subjects may not yet be represented in the current version. We would look to work with subject specialist across the sector to produce such a resource. Learning to work inclusively
• Disciplinary-specific materials are highly valued by participants on programmes and stakeholders. OPENSTEM 
• Subject-specificity is not confined to the development of activities and materials but has changed the culture and methodology of our STEM strand.  We have found that STEM participants respond well to a strongly evidence-based theory and approaches which involve quantitative as well as qualitative measurement and evaluation.  Hence, our approaches to ‘meta-learning’ make this more explicit than in previous cohorts. OPENSTEM 
• Materials created for one discipline can be adapted for another OPENSTEM 
• ‘The development of our subject specific resources (Maths and Biosciences) has resulted in an impetus to create similar resources for further disciplines.  This is partly driven by the fact that members of the wider team (for example those who teach HASS subjects) can see the benefits of subject-specificity and partly by the desire to give parity of experience to other members of our STEM group.  Hence, we have developed parallel materials for Engineering, Physical Geography and Psychology and colleagues have developed them for English and Human Geography. While this was an intended consequence of the project, we are surprised at the speed and enthusiasm with which these have developed’ OPENSTEM 
• “Teaching and learning resources around inclusion, ESD, and digital literacies are taken seriously by users when made discipline-specific. ORIC
• Inclusion resources in particular are adopted by university teachers when issues are presented in a local context (i.e. one the audience are familiar with). ORIC
• our resource offers a subject specific view that will be valuable for more generic based accredited programmes to use. RLT Performing Arts

HE in FE requirements

• As part of the pilot survey, those team members who came from an HE in FE background were asked to express their own requirements for an OER that they would be happy to use. The majority of their responses could be applied to any learning and teaching OER - OERs as stimulous for talking about existing and good practice
• Clarity in its descriptions (metadata), in particular regarding target level and teaching context 
• Clear information on contextual application so that potential users can see easily and quickly if it is suitable. 
• Ability to be adapted and guidance on adapting it 
• Ease of use- no major technical issues to overcome and clear instructions on use 
• Ease of access
• Current, relevant to a user‟s particular needs, concise
• Should be of sufficient quality that it is worth using rather than creating a new resource- for example by drawing on an evidenced level of knowledge and experience on the part of the resource author
• It should include both face-to-face and blended learning approaches
• Can easily be combined with other resources or re-purposed EDOR

Context/structure in way OERs are presented or seen as useful to different audiences(related to Granularity issues)

In the OMAC strand there was a clear and definate preference to present resources within a context or framework. This reflects the nature of the strand requirements which focussed on accredited programmes or schemes of professional development. This meant that projects often presented OERs is two or three ways - in their own repository, in Jorum and on the web. Interestingly 3 of the 11 projects chose to use the OU Labspace moodle environment - OPENSTEM, RLT for PA,Learning to Teach Inclusively and other projects chose to use institutional moodles ASSAP developed The Pool.

• The Moodle development was not part of the of the early project plan, but offered an opportunity to present the materials in a more structured and holistic way than is possible in an OER repository where they necessarily become more fragmented, though more easily retrievable.  By making the learning materials available through both a VLE and two OERs, we hoped to capture the best of both platforms. (ASSAP)
• Our only hesitation in reframing the structure along pedagogical lines was that we might lose our emphasis on links with the UK PSF.  On balance, the new structure is most certainly more easily navigable and coherent and we have addressed the link with the UK PSF by introducing a more comprehensive and visible mapping of activities to it. (OPENSTEM)
  
• In contrast some projects argue that disaggregating resoucres offers more visability and re-usability (IPR4EE,CPD4HE)
• DELILA noted that many Digital and Information Literacy OERs included institution specific information and may be less appropriate for sharing than other OERs

Several projects made their materials available it a range of places to facilitate access - including repositories, content management systems, VLEs such as moodle and open web and felt that open web options enables them to include context and frameworks to augment the OERs with pedagogic context. 

• The second aim was achieved by deciding, at an early stage in the Project, to develop The Pool in a Moodle environment and then upload the resources to HumBox and subsequently  OpenJorum.  The Moodle development was not part of the of the early project plan, but offered an opportunity to present the materials in a more structured and holistic way than is possible in an OER repository where they necessarily become more fragmented, though more easily retrievable.  By making the learning materials available through both a VLE and two OERs, we hoped to capture the best of both platforms. ASSAP 
• Evaluation report comment “Think about the design of the page, particularly for someone who is visiting for the first time and knows nothing about the project but has seen one of your presentations, or has heard that you have been doing something that they are very interested in… Response: This recommendation is the one that has had the most dramatic impact.  We worked very closely with our evaluator, following the report, to completely redesign our LabSpace unit.  Our only hesitation in reframing the structure along pedagogical lines was that we might lose our emphasis on links with the UK PSF.  On balance, the new structure is most certainly more easily navigable and coherent and we have addressed the link with the UK PSF by introducing a more comprehensive and visible mapping of activities to it. OPENSTEM
  
•  The value of a pedagogical ‘package’ or ‘wrapper’ is confirmed. OPENSTEM
• “For IPR4EE, while the pedagogic structure is appropriate to accredited provision, the course team felt that disaggregated resources and ‘little’ technological substructures provided greatest visibility and reusability.” IPR4EE
• “Initial evaluation (see below) indicates that individual disaggregated resources appear to be more useful that whole unit/module. Within intensive postgraduate teaching programmes of 60 credits, it is unlikely that a whole 20credits area may be devoted to aspects of IP in education. There is, however, scope for a flexible consideration of CPD to adopt 20 credit units of study selected from OMAC strand courses. With this in mind, the IPR4EE project will be part of the offer of the ongoing development of the UCF CPD-HE framework and also comprise part of our Skillset Academy offer.”IPR4EE
• “We had thought of this initially as a conceptual division and the units as discrete entities. The topics are all important in relation of teaching and learning in HE but we soon realised that splitting the resources in this way might be more helpful to us than to our potential users. The topic headings helped with division of labour and managing the development but there was considerable overlap between topics and a potential user browsing the resources might be misled by the titles and miss relevant materials. On the website the units are displayed as originally planned but we have created a mapping document that takes our two identified target areas – digital and information literacies and discipline-specific teaching and learning - and provides links directly to the materials that support these areas.” CPD4HE
• “The evidence we have suggests that it is ideas or parts of resources that will be useful rather than complete packages or sequences. [evidence – feedback from steering group and workshop participants].” CPD4HE 
• DELILA evaluation work has suggested that in terms of sharing OERs, sharing learning design may be more useful than sharing specific resources such as a PowerPoint file. This is because learning design resources describe the learning outcomes, the activities the students undertake and the structure of a class. This is particularly valuable for those new to teaching. DELILA
• The DELILA project questioned whether digital and information literacy resources are more context and institution specific and less helpful to share in practice than other types of OERs. They would welcome further evaluation work to consider if this is the case or if OERs in these subjects are used in a different way to other OERs. DELILA
• “Teaching and learning resources around inclusion, ESD, and digital literacies are taken seriously by users when made discipline-specific. ORIC
• Inclusion resources in particular are adopted by university teachers when issues are presented in a local context (i.e. one the audience are familiar with). ORIC 
• OER material is used more widely when directly incorporated into an on-going course (e.g. a PGCert).”  ORIC
• Although each area of the site is carefully structured to allow for increasing levels of familiarity and ease, it is entirely possible for individuals to mark out very specific pathways and ‘journeys’ in accordance with specific research aims. By switching from one room to another it is possible to access different perspectives on similar material depending on the vantage point of the contributor. In this respect the resource offers every opportunity to develop informed, dynamic and multi-faceted teaching practice that is alive to different conceptions of knowledge – experiential, embodied, theorized, intellectual, emotional, intuitive etc. There is no attempt to order or prioritize the material into specific hierarchical categories; indeed it is the imbrication of all forms of information that makes the site so rich and enabling. David Shirley, Manchester Metropolitan University RLT for PA

Guidance

• guidance is still very much in evidence, but is embedded with other materials that form the resources and activities in The Pool. ASSAP 

Technical aspects

Technical aspects have been synthesised by the JISC CETIS support team. For a full understanding of these go to http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/UKOER_synthesis

• Tracking the use and repurposing of materials is problematic.We wonder whether this aspiration is really achievable and question whether this should be the primary focus of another raft of funding.” OPENSTEM

Quality Assurance

• “The quality assurance process we employed was vigorous.  While it ensured that we only used resources we felt completely confident in promoting and including in our course, it did prolong the OER discovery process.  This had interesting implications for us as we approached this as academics.  Our experience could and most likely would be the experience of any academic searching for OERs to include in their lectureship. IPR4EE
• DELILA considered whether OERs should be peer reviewed for quality control purposes and whether this should be undertaken before or after depositing in a repository. The use of reviews or ratings features in repositories might be one way of managing this process. DELILA

Sourcing/Discovery

• “Interestingly for the team, the lack of resources surrounding IPR and collaborations, consortia and partnerships resulted in more time than had been allocated in trying to source materials for the units relating to this specific area of learning object production and OER production.  Ultimately, the majority of the resources used came from the non-profit sector.  The copyright owners were thrilled to be contacted.  In all cases bar one, the organisations contacted went on to apply a Creative Commons license to the resources we contacted them about. “IPR4EE 
• Whilst repositories went some way towards providing quality learning objects, resources and materials, the vast majority of learning resources and objects we discovered and used had not been deposited in any OER repository.” IPR4EE

Audience/users

• We found it was important to have a primary target group in mind when developing the materials but then to review them to accommodate the needs of a secondary group as far as possible. Two examples are: the materials on Assessment, which take the academic developer as primary audience but would also be useful to an individual learner; the materials on Values which are primarily addressed to the individual learner but which could easily be incorporated into a programme.

“As I always work very much with the user of resources in mind it has been a challenge to know how to adjust materials and pick what will work best ….. Adapting to EITHER others who will be working to help academic staff to develop as teachers OR writing directly for the teachers themselves so they can work on their own CPD ‐ that has been my dilemma.” Dr. Rosalind Duhs, CPD4HE teacher‐developer CPD4HE

• OER material that is informed by current scholarly thinking and research tends to be well received. ORIC 
• Users appreciate the opportunity to debate, in a scholarly manner, the veracity and evidence base for the material hosted by the project. ORIC

Student generated OERs

Several OMAC strand projects included student generated OERS CPD4HE RLT Performing Arts ACTOR Open for Business Learning to Teach Inclusively. This might be expected due to the nature of their primary audience.   

• Doing this work has also highlighted the fact that student writing in professional education contexts can also be a learning resource. This is something we would be keen to explore in future OER work. CPD4HE
• We soon realised that we had a great opportunity to engage our current postgraduate students in creating the resource. They were keen and so we were able to video many of the sessions in which they discussed the issues considered in each study area. We videoed ourselves   discussing issues of pedagogy with them and we videoed colleagues who we felt had important things to add to the study topics.  So a good deal of the material in our OER is made for purpose film. This was a major development of the OER as we realised how interesting it would be for teachers and supporters of learning who often work alone to hear and see their peers discussing the enhancement of practice. RLT Performing Arts

IPR issues

• Copyright and IPR issues were not thought to be significant at the outset of the project and the team had considerable experience in addressing copyright issues. However, in the event, the materials for conversion actually contained far more 3^rd party content than anyone anticipated and to have copyright cleared this material would have been time consuming and inefficient. Therefore, the work around of either removing or replacing content with a placeholder was developed. DELILA

 Are the OERs accessible to all intended user groups? (technically, legally and pedagogically)

Technically

• Our use of Open Document formats in the first set of released materials taught us that, although it was in the spirit of openness, it was a barrier to potential users, who would not be prepared to install new software, even if it was free. CPD4HE
• “Keyword theming and adherence to W3C best practice are critical elements which support the discovery of online learning resources.” IPR4EE
• Tracking the use and repurposing of materials is problematic.We wonder whether this aspiration is really achievable and question whether this should be the primary focus of another raft of funding.” OPENSTEM
• That a major problem of linking to online resources is to ensure the sustainability of the material. While we were developing the site for instance the Palatine site – a major source of references- was closed and we have to relocate the material with new URL’s. The Youtube video material is noted as checked as possible to retrieve in August 2011 but we have noted that web based links often become corrupted or overloaded with advertising.  Editing and monitoring rights on the site will ensure updated resources. RLT for PA
  

Legally

• The CC licenses are mixed, some with and some without the NC attribute. CPD4HE
  

Pedagogically

• We have two potential target audiences and some of the resources may be more readily usable by academic developers than individual academics without any further guidance. CPD4HE
• feedback suggested that it was difficult to evaluate OERs without a teacher using them in practice. Therefore, DELILA concluded that a peer review process needed to occur after the resources were released to enable a wide community of practitioners to have the chance to use and comment on the suitability of the resources. The comments feature in the EPrints software might be valuable as a way of capturing peer reviews in future. However the criteria developed during this project was praised as being comprehensive and robust by peer reviewers. DELILA
• Another unexpected issue was that while converting the resources to OER, the team found many digital and information literacy resources contain institutionally specific information, which might lead them to be seen as less re-usable than other types of OERs. DELILA 
• A key consideration in today’s educational landscape concerns the need to find ways of disseminating sophisticated/specialized forms of knowledge in a way that facilitates engagement without undermining the complexities that may be inherent to the discipline. This particular Educational Resource enables the development of approaches to teaching that remain cognizant of the need to embrace and take account of complex processes whilst simultaneously fostering innovative and creative teaching and learning practice. David Shirley, Manchester Metropolitan University RLT for PA

 Are the OERs adaptable for re-use and re-purposing?

Many projects did not specifically address this but it relates to the granularity/context issue and also to the fact that many projects did not have time to find this out - so there may be an intention that materials will be adaptable/repurposable but no evidence that they actually are yet. Appropirate licencing has been selected to facilitate reuse and re-purposing.

• “Yes – resources can be selected individually, in groups or as a complete package. The licensing allows re-use and re-purposing. They are released in both editable and printable formats. We have provided citation information.” CPD4HE

CORRE Framework

The University of Leicester OTTER project from the pilot phase developed the  CORRE framework. Two OMAC strand projects utilised and adapted the framework.

• “We found the CORRE framework useful for setting out the process for turning teaching materials into OERs but, like our partner project, DELILA, we adapted it to suit our very small project.” CPD4HE 
• Using the CORRE framework (University of Leicester, 2010) developed as part of the OTTER project, to ensure material is re-usable and released as openly as possible. DELILA http://delilaopen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/adapted-corre.xls

• DELILA adapted the CORRE framework to provide a practical check-list for rating materials against OER criteria. The project team also made contact with OTTER/ CORRE project members, and welcome continued developments in this area.