Release Development and Release


This page is part of Phase2 Release 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   Learning from WOeRK (Learning from WOeRK final report) | SWAP (SWAP Final report) |  TIGER (TIGER Final Report) | DHOER (DHOER Final report) | SCOOTER (SCOOTER Final Project Report)  DeSTRESS (DeSTRESS Final Project Report) | SPACE SPACE final report | LEARNING LEGACIES (Learning Legacies Final Report) ALTO (ALTO Final Report)  | OSIER (OSIER Final Report) | ORBEE (ORBEE Final Report)    | PORSCHE (PORSCHE Final Report)

 

 

Jump to specific sections on this page...


 

 

 

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

Many projects released a mixture of existing and newly created resources. All projects released existing resources but none only released new materials. It is difficult to tease out if the subject area was the cause apart from projects with an obvious focus on legacy material. Some subject areas present so many challenges in releasing existing materials for a range of reasons (such as healthcare) that it may be worth focussing on new content.

 


What kind of OERs are appropriate for the subject discipline/theme?

As expected projects produced a wide range of formats ranging from individual assets to whole modules. Several projects felt that OERs needed alot of accompanying information providing metadata, licencing information and pedagocial context. Some formats presented significant challenges (newspaper =articles, photographs, patient data. What has been significant for this, and the OMAC strand, is the number of projects who felt the need to present the resources with alot of surrounding context to cater for different audience needs (other teachers cf learners). This resulted in them depositing them in repositories to facilitate storage and management aspects and web based mechanisms to ensure accessibility for various audiences. Several projects noted that the process of developing and releasing OERs had an impact on learning design practice. see also Release Practice Change. Sectoral differences and contraints have proved to be very interesting, particularly in relation to NHS, workplace and publishers.

Formats

It was argued that many agree to the publishing of images captured during their sporting performance, but where there was some doubt, a general image, where the athlete could not be recognised, would be used. 58 have been uploaded, with another two held up because of difficulties in identifying original ownership (one was subject to the Guardian and Reuters deferring to each other).

Reviewing all images, finding replacements and obtaining permission for their inclusion in OER is a major job, even if CC images are sourced. The replacement images need to be located in the first instance and then approved by the academic for relevance before they can be inserted and attributed in the resource. The 58 case studies and discussion starters needed to be edited to comply with CC and OER best practices. This was not a minor undertaking as most, if not all, resources contained images that needed IP clearance.

Engaging with large organisations such as Routledge and LOCOG was always going to be challenging. International publishers and sporting institutions are renowned for rigorous enforcement of intellectual property (IP) laws and this project was set up to try to convince them to release their resources under open licences which facilitated ‘free’ reuse by the academic community (although the general public would also have access).” Alex Fenton 

A total of 25 journal articles was identified by Routledge and released as ‘open access’ resources for this project. Unfortunately it was not possible for Routledge to agree to the release of their resources under even the most restrictive Creative Commons licences, despite their insistence throughout the project that this would be achieved. In June the Routledge funders decided that they prefer ‘bespoke licences’ to ‘protect their investment in developing their [sic] Olympic studies portal’. Whilst this was a major disappointment to the project at the eleventh hour, a number of articles were linked to by the project and Routledge are committed to releasing further resources as ‘open access’, albeit not CC, which will benefit the HLST community.”   

Generic vs subject specific resources

NHS context

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

Guidance

“Nothing can take away the role of the tutor, making things meaningful, providing formative feedback that can be a huge issue as well. We can't just cast people adrift without any support.”

“I believe the responsibility for learning lies with the learner, and my job is to facilitate that as best I can. Whether they engage with the material or not is down to them really.” Learning from WOeRK OER developers) Learning from WOeRK

Technical aspects (including metadata, tracking)

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

Quality Assurance

Sourcing/Discovery

Audience/users - re-use potential

“It would be good to use it to look at accessibility of the stage, auditorium, wing space etc. – use it as a planning tool. It would also be good for non- disabled people to use it to think about disabled people, their sightlines etc. (Arts organisation)

“It would be good to have a pre-built template of accessible space.” (Arts organisation) SPACE (simulation – 3d environment)   

“Not fully knowing where your learners have come from, what their influences are, what they are hoping for from the module. So trying to distil as much information as possible to meet those different needs has been a challenge.”

“I wasn't totally clear at the beginning about the audience to which I was aiming this. Things got a lot easier once I sussed that out.” (Learning from WOeRK OER developers) Learning from WOeRK

Student generated OERs

SCOOTER and SPACE both included student generated content

IPR issues

 


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

see also section on audience above

“I think that there is an assumption that a disabled person can’t get into a theatre space so you need to be careful to position this as something that complements their ordinary interactions with theatre spaces rather than something that they have to use instead of.” SPACE

“I can see where, for students who find it difficult to access theatres, it will give them a much more rounded experience. It will allow them a degree of participation in a programme that they were not able to have before.” (HE stakeholder) SPACE


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

They’ve achieved a lot, even just with their patient consent form, and making everyone aware that you do need the consent of everyone involved in video and audio, and just keep those records and giving yourself the reassurance that everything you are doing is in the best practice. PORSCHE Evaluation Report


Frameworks

CORRE Framework

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

TIGER Quality Framework

A TIGER pedagogical model that will enable other IPE and health and social care professionals to benefit  -TIGER has developed a quality framework which allows professionals to clearly understand how the OERs have been developed. https://openeducationalresources.pbworks.com/w/page/24838164/Quality-considerations