Strand evidence: release | cascade |  omac | collections

 

This cross-strand evidence supports the discussion on Phase2 Practice change  and unless otherwise indicated is generally taken from project final reports, evaluation reports and discussions at the final programme meeting. Links to apporpriate strand evidence pages are included below and these provide links to project reports. Where questions are addressed by only one strand you are directed to strand evidence pages.

 

This list allows you to jump to the appropriate section on this page   Motivations and barriers to release and use What are the main motivations for release and use of OERs? What are the main motivations for, and barriers to creating static or dynamic collections of OERs? What are the main barriers to OER release and use? Practice and policy change How do we see practices and policies changing? How has OER release affected academic practice of staff running HEA accredited courses or schemes of professional development that meet the UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education (UK PSF)? What policies enable contribution of OERs to cross-institutional collections Expertise What kinds of expertise are key to changing practice?  How have different means of sharing expertise proved effective? Stakeholders What mechanisms support effective stakeholder engagement for the subject discipline/theme? How are different means of raising the profile of OERs within disciplines and engaging communities of users in adapting and repurposing resources effective? How are different means of engaging stakeholders (eg professinal bodies, learned societies) effective? OER uptake What makes discipline-based collections usable across institutions?

 

Motivations and barriers to release and use

What are the main motivations for release and use of OERs?

Strand evidence: release | cascade |  omac |

 

Motivations (links to benefits)

Individual motivations

• showcasing (for reputation enhancement or personal and professional reward)  (OERCafe, ADM, PORSCHE, ALTO)

• oers as publishing (EDOR, O4B)  
• informing and improving teaching and encouraging innovative practice (EDOR, IPR4EE, ALTO,  Learning from WOeRK)
• previous positive engagement with OER projects (PORSCHE)
• passion for their subject (Learning from WOeRK)
• empowering staff (EDOR)
• Expanding engagement with other academic staff and with staff from other sectors (EDOR, Learning from WOeRK)
• Capacity building (individual staff competancies and to enable sustainable development) (ALTO)
• The OMAC projects focii on teachers meant that most of these projects were motivated by capacity building either in a particular subject area or skills area. Digital literacy resources, in particular were identified as highly relevant and endorsed the inclusion of this as a priority area in the original call documentation.
• high motivation to use content , although may not be openly licensed for such use (OSIER)

Institutional motivations

• showcasing (to showcase to potential learners and open new markets) (ALTO, DHOER)
• leads to improved higher quality learning resources (ASSAP)
• external markets (OERCaFE, ALTO)
• research outputs (Ripple, Learning from WOeRK, DHOER)
• surfacing issues around culture, learning design IPR (ALTO)
• potential risk of not being involved (missing the boat) (PORSCHE)
• institutional efficiencies - such as time saving, elliminating duplication seen as motivators (EDOR, O4B, OERCafe, OSTRICH, PORSCHE, ALTO, OSIER)
• institutional repositories and content management stimulates openness (ADM)
• public outreach (ALTO)

To share and exchange resources (often through tightly-knit communities or within and across institutions)

• supports and enables Communities of Practice, knowledge exchange and collaboration (EDOR, OERCafe, ADM, Learning from WOeRK, SWAP, ALTO)
• strength of existing communities (OSIER)
• several projects mentioned problems with the understaning of OER terminology and felt that focussing on the notion of sharing had impacts on motivation (ACTOR, IPR4EE, PORSCHE)
• legacy materials (LEARNING LEGACIES, Learning from WOeRK, ALTO, ASSAP)
• enhances links with employers (Learning from WOeRK)

Public interest (to open knowledge to the public)

• sharing of ideas and knowledge (EDOR, Learning from WOeRK, PORSCHE, ALTO)

Students/learners

• supporting independent and personalised learning approaches (LEARNING LEGACIES, Learning from WOeRK)
• open access to HE (Learning from WOeRK)
• supporting remote learners  (Learning from WOeRK)
• showcasing student work (ALTO, SCOOTER)

 

What are the main motivations for, and barriers to creating static or dynamic collections of OERs?

Strand evidence: collections

---

What are the main barriers to OER release and use?

Strand evidence: release | cascade |  omac |

 

IPR challenges

• difficulties of releasing existing materials with third-party content (DELILA, IPR4EE, EDOR, Learning from WOeRK, PORSCHE, OSIER)
• trust and ownership issues (CPD4HE, EDOR, DELILA, PORSCHE)
• patient consent in the NHS sector (ACTOR, PORSCHE)

Subject discipline concerns

• OERs not appropriate for subject - links to issues around granularity, context and anticipated use (OSTRICH, ADM)
• OERs may discourage attendance at institutions where formal qualifications less important (ADM)

Institutional barriers 

• resistance to the notion of sharing at senior levels (O4B)
• lack of institutional support (EDOR)
• costing models (PORSCHE)
• approval/contracts to engage with OER projects (O4B)
• access issues relating to technologies (O4B) 

Staff challenges

• concerns about commercial use (EDOR
• Capacity issues
• lack of digital literacies particularly relating to IPR and practical issues during development such as attribution, metadata (EDOR, PORSCHE, Learning from WOeRK)
• time issues for staff - having to engage with new areas of knowledge and skills, administrative burden (EDOR, CPD4HE, IPR4EE, ASSAP had overlooked time needed to generate a framework around the OER)
• HE in FE barriers identified seem to focus around confidence and staff perceptions, administrative burdens, training, lack of institutional support, credulity gap around quality and usefulness of OERs (EDOR, OERCaFE)
• perceptions around impact of releasing content on enrollment (CPD4HE) 
• lack of reward and recognition (IPR4EE, Learning from WOeRK) 
• lack of awareness (PORSCHE, SPACE, LEARNING LEGACIES, DeSTRESS, IPR4EE)
• lack of time and increased workload (PORSCHE, ADM, OERCaFE, ASSAP)
• confidence re quality - content not being perceived as 'good enough' or requiring more effort to make them 'more polished for open release (PORSCHE, Learning from WOeRK, Ripple, ADM, O4B)
• threats to roles and even jobs (ADM)
• entrenched practice (IPR4EE) 

Student barriers

• use of oers being perceived as a deficiency by staff and students (O4B)

---

Practice and policy change

How do we see practices and policies changing?

Strand evidence: release | cascade |

 

Practice change

In terms of effecting practice change the OSTRICH project concluded that 'both top-down and bottom-up engagement are necessary for success, right from the beginning' and 'evidence is the key to credibility'. This project's final report includes a useful table of changes to attitudes and practices observed among its key stakeholders.

 

 Collaborative working

• cross-institutional teams (Learning from WOeRK) 
• cross-sector teams (Learning from WOeRK)
• new partnerships (Ripple)
• increased levels of trust (ALTO, C-SAP) 

Changing pedagogy

• developing an open pedagogy (C-SAP, ADM) 
• new approaches for non-traditional learners (Learning from WOeRK 
• enhancing teaching practice through use/re-use (DeSTRESS) 
• cascading knowledge (CASCADE strand, PORSCHE) 

New business models

•  free content with 'paid for' services (Learning from WOeR)

Content production

• involving learners (SPACE)
• changing the way content is produced (Learning from WOeRK, SPACE, PORSCHE)
• impact of new IPR knowledge (PORSCHE)
• own data sets preferred for teaching (C-SAP) 
• Institutional Branding - corporate identity management (Ripple)
• open release incorporated within existing processes (CASCADE projects,  

New knowledge

• IPR aspects (PORSCHE, 
• Awareness and use of open licenses (Ripple, OSTRICH 

 

Policy change

• consent commons policy (PORSCHE, ACTOR
• good practice in copyright clearance and licensing built into policies (Ripple, Bath “Deed of Licence”  (available here) OSTRICH) 
• take-down policies - Bath and Derby have created a joint takedown policy for OERs, which has been developed from the existing Bath research publications repository takedown policy, and amended to take into account good practice from the OTTER and JorumOpen repositories. (OSTRICH)

 

How has OER release affected academic practice of staff running HEA accredited courses or schemes of professional development that meet the UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education (UK PSF)?

Strand evidence: omac

 

What policies enable contribution of OERs to cross-institutional collections

Strand evidence: Collections 

---

Expertise

What kinds of expertise are key to changing practice? 

Strand evidence: Cascade

 

How have different means of sharing expertise proved effective?

Strand evidence: Cascade

---

Stakeholders

What mechanisms support effective stakeholder engagement for the subject discipline/theme?

Strand evidence: release | omac |

 

Workshops, advice and guidance

• introductions to the concepts of OER, with an emphasis on highlighting the benefits to overcome barriers
• workshops, advice and guidance on preparing resources for open release - copyright, licencing, metadata/tagging, contextual additions (such as frameworks or simple pedagogic wrapper pages) (EDOR, CPD4HE, SWAP, ALTO)

OER engagement

• as CPD - incorporating training into formal sessions for new lecturers and staff PG Certs and diplomas (EDOR)
• with students (ALTO) 
• existing networks (ALTO) 

Embedding practice

• Seen as particularly important for digital and information literacy.  (DELILA) 
• Cultural change (ACTOR, O4B)

Incentives

• payments (Learning from WOeRK) 
• external input from consultants   (Learning from WOeRK) 

 

 

How are different means of raising the profile of OERs within disciplines and engaging communities of users in adapting and repurposing resources effective?

Strand evidence: collections

 

 

How are different means of engaging stakeholders (eg professinal bodies, learned societies) effective?

Strand evidence: collections

---

OER uptake

What makes discipline-based collections usable across institutions? 

Strand evidence: collections