Strand evidence is recorded at: release | cascade | omac | collections

 

This cross-strand evidence supports the discussion on Phase2 Development and Release Issues 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.

 

Jump to the appropriate section of this page   OER development and release What technical issues emerged? What legal and IPR issues emerged? Are the OERs accessible to all intended groups? Are the OERs adaptable for re-use and re-purposing? Frameworks to support development and release Aspects relating to subject discipline or theme How far does the subject discipline or theme impact on the release of existing resources compared with the release of new resources? What kind of OERs are appropriate for the subject discipline/theme How easily can OERs be mapped to the HEA professional standards framework and what are the gaps?  OER collections How are different means of making OERs discoverable within disciplines effective? What issues arise in collecting and making OERs available dynamically? How are different ways of organising, and guiding users to and through resources effective? What selection and quality processes are appropriate for dynamic and dynamically collected OERs? What issues arise in linking social technology-based marketing and community portals to resources from a number of institutions?

 

OER development and release

 

What technical issues emerged?

Strand evidence: cascade | release | omac | collections

 

Best evidence of technical aspects are covered by JISC CETIS synthesis

http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/johnr/2011/08/26/ukoer2techsynthesis/

• Content description
• Licences and encoding
• Content management platforms
• OER creation tools used
• Analytics and tools to manipulate OER 
• Dissemination protocols in use and Jorum representation

Most interesting technical aspect of this phase - many projects depositing in several places to present mateirals at different levels of granularity, different contexts, for different users (teachers/students) - repositories (institutional and community, content management systems) 4 projects used OU labspace moodle (RLT for PA, OPENSTEM, Learning to Teach Inclusively and IPR4EE)  2 projects used HUMBOX - SWAP AND DHOER

• repositories (ALTO, PROSCHE, DHOER, LEARNING LEGACIES, TIGER, SWAP, OSIER, Learning from WOeRK, EDOR, IPR4EE, ASSAP )
• web-based (includes open CMS) SPACE,  De-STRESS, Learning from WOeRK, SWAP, SCOOTER, ORBEE, ALTO, ASSAP, DHOER, Learning to Teach Inclusively, ASSAP, OPENSTEM, CPD4HE, ORIC, RLT for PA)
• JORUM (deposit as opposed to links) (Learning from WOeRK, SCOOTER, ALTO, ORBEE, TIGER, SWAP, DHOER, ACTOR, DELILA, 04B, EDOR, IPR4EE, CPD4HE ASSAP, ACTOR, ORIC, RLT for PA)

 

See also JORUMPhase2 page for discusson of issues around JORUM and collations of project recommendations

 

What legal and IPR issues emerged?

Strand evidence: cascade | release | omac

see IPR_Support page for detail of project issues

 

Are the OERs accessible to all intended groups?

(technically, legally and pedagogically)

Strand evidence: omac | release

 

• open document formats - can be a barrier if sotware needs downloading (CPD4HE)

• W3C best practice (IPR4EE, LEARNING LEGACIES)

• Tracking use and repurposing  problematic (OPENSTEM)

• Sustainability of content (updating links, advertising) (RLT for PA)

• CC licences - issue of including NC (CPD4HE)

• audiences

• more usable by some than others (ed developers more likely to use than academics - CPD4HE

• peer review to reveal accessibility issues (DELILA)

• balance between facilitating engagement and retaining discipline related complexities (RLT for PA)

• physically disabled students (SPACE, DHOER)

• institutionally specific information (DELILA)

• need for advanced searching options in repositories (PORSCHE)

• developed and presented for use in different contexts ( many projects in OMAC and Release strand took this approach)

• mobile devices (DHOER)

• CSAP Cascade project paper on accessibility

 

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

(likely to link to impacts/benefits)

Strand evidence: omac | release

 

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.

• early evidence of use and re-use (LEARNING LEGACIES, SCOOTER, Learning from WOeRK,
• varied types of resource - different levels of granularity (DeSTRESS, TIGER, PORSCHE, DHOER
• issues around interoperabilit of assessment items (De-STRESS)
• technical barriers to separate items into constitutent parts (PORSCHE)
• possiblity of re-packaging as open textbook (DHOER) 

 

Frameworks to support development and release

Strand evidence: release | omac | cascade

• Leicester CORRE framework used and adapted by several projects (DORRE framework - C-SAP) (Adapted CORRE DELILA) Quality Framework TIGER) CPD4HE, SCOOTER, DHOER 

 

---

Aspects relating to subject discipline or theme

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

Strand evidence release | OMAC

 

• how far a resource becomes a new resource after adapting (CPD4HE)
• complexity of other factors influences choices about which type of resource to release (eg, familiarity with OER release, funbding avialbale, time and other resources, availability of new technologies
• boundaries between learning resource and guidance - significant for OMAC strand as many OERs constituted guidance materials for teachers (CPD4HE)
• The ACTOR project raised several issues relating to the nature of the healthcare education and the inclusion of patient information - raised significant difficulties in releasing existing materials due to gaining patient permission retrospectively, concerns over releasing patient data into educational settings and using patient images...
• 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.
•  Due to the nature of the challenges of patient consent ACTOR developed a ‘Consent Commons’ framework to support digital professionalism recognising the rights of people to be treated fairly and with respect.  Proposing a consent commoms in open education paper This is likely to be difficult to apply in a retrospective way to existing resources (ACTOR, PORSCHE)
• issues around the long term usability of OER in healthcare education due to changes in policy, technology and public opinion (ACTOR, PORSCHE)
• Release strand released a mixture of existing and new 
• legacy materials - existing resources (LEARNING LEGACIES, ALTO)
• subjects with heavy use of images required significant revision to existing resources if consent was not evident in previous licences - issues around images of children particularly complex  (OSIER)
• strong compliance culture  in NHS and move to monetising content (PORSCHE

 

Projects releasing

• existing materials (includes re-purposing)
• (OMAC - Learning to Teach Inclusively, EDOR, ASSAP, OPENSTEM, CPD4HE, ORIC, DLEILA, ACTOR, O4B)
• (Release -  LEARNING LEGACIES, De-STRESS, TIGER, Learning from WOeRK, SWAP, SCOOTER 60%, PORSCHE, OSIER, DHOER, ORBEE, ALTO)
• new materials
• (OMAC - Learning to Teach Inclusively, ASSAP, OPENSTEM, O4B)
• (Release  - SPACE, De-STRESS, Learning from WOeRK, SCOOTER 40%, ORBEE)

 

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

(eg, affecting format, levels of granularity, etc.)

Strand evidence release | OMAC | cascade

 

Formats

• Case studies and discussion starters (LEARNING LEGACIES)
• Seminar/workshop plans (ASSAP) 
• Lecture capture (Cascade projects, ASSAP, Learning from WOeRK)
• Multi-disciplinary resources (LEARNING LEGACIES, De-STRESS, )
• International resources (LEARNING LEGACIES, De-STRESS)
• taster materials (Learning from WOeRK) 
• high production content not necessary (ALTO) 
• rich media for arts (ALTO) 
• Assessment - questions banks (DeSTRESS) quizzes (ASSAP
• Videos
• of authentic learning and teaching experiences (Learning to work inclusively, ASSAP, De-STRESS, )
• Long term usefulness of video - video recordings can date in terms of content and how audiences relate to language used, visual apperance - if video production is embedded in teaching practice then a regular supply of recordings can replace existing content. (Learning to work inclusively)
• interviews (ASSAP) 
• making subject more appealing (statistics - De-STRESS) 
• wikis (DE-STRESS)
• familiar file formats - eg word, excel (ORIC, ALTO) 
• Planning documents and reports (LEARNING LEGACIES)
• Papers - commercial publishers (LEARNING LEGACIES) 
• formats for mobile devices (DHOER, SPACE) 
• open formats (C-SAP, CPD4HE)

Generic vs subject specific resources

• Projects found that users demand subject specific OERs (Learning to work inclusively, OPENSTEM, ORIC, RLT Performing Arts)
• However subject specific OERs are seen as adaptable for other purposes (OPENSTEM, RLT Performing Arts)
• Concerns around transferability due to different teaching approaches (ADM)
  
• Generic subjects covered by many projects 
• IPR, CPD, Digital literacy, information literacy, statistics (DELILA, IPR4EE, CPD4HE, De-STRESS, TIGER, Ripple) 

HE in FE requirements

• EDOR used a pilot survey to ask people who came from an HE in FE background what they would want from an OER. As well as listing a range of requirements that could apply to learning resources in general the responses also could have come from teachers in any sector such as adaptable, with appropriate guidance and descriptions (metadata), accessible, relevant, concise, high quality, appropriate for blended learning and easily combined with other resources. 
  

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

• present resources within a context or framework. (OMAC strand) This reflects the nature of the strand requirements which focused on accredited programmes or schemes of professional development. This meant that projects often presented OERs in 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.)
• In contrast some projects argue that disaggregating resoucres offers more visability and re-usability (IPR4EE, CPD4HE, De-STRESS, DHOER, C-SAP)
• DELILA noted that many Digital and Information Literacy OERs included institution specific information and may be less appropriate for sharing than other OERs
• support to use the resources - either within resource or related to how it is presented (particularly for non-traditional students) (statistics - De-STRESS, IPE - TIGER, WBL - Learning form WOeRK, ALTO
• range of granularities (SCOOTER, De-STRESS, ALTO, DHOER)
• accessibility (in terms of content) (ORBEE) 
• guidance for staff (Learning from WOeRK, OSIER) 

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

• metadata burden (OSIER)
• loss of tracking/feedback data when resource is shared /reused (PORSCHE)
• technical constraints noted for NHS (PORSCHE) 
• clear and open licencing vital - but challenges of clearing copyright remain major time consuiming activity and prevented some items being released (all)
• different platforms 
• institutional content management system (DHOER)
• open moodle (OPENSTEM, RLT for PA, Learning to Teach Inclusively, ASSAP) 
• need for open formats and open platforms (C-SAP)

Quality assurance

• prolonging processes (IPR4EE
• review before or after release/deposit (DELILA)
• reviews and ratings features within repositories (DELILA) 
• poor quality elements of a resource affecting release  (OSIER)
• perceptions of quality very important - linked to fears and barriers around professionalism (ALTO, PORSCHE, ADM)  

Sourcing/discovery

• lack of resources in subject areas  (IPR4EE,
• time issues (IPR4EE 
• sources predominantly non-profit sector (IPR4EE 
• resources not from formal repositories or classified as OER (IPR4EE)
• some niche repositories not very accessible (TIGER)
• repositories designed for management and storage not as good for presentation (ALTO)
• in NHS - different repository platforms causing usability challenges (PORSCHE)

Audience/users

• developing for primary audience but also thinking of different audiences (CPD4HE) 
• OERs informed by current scholarly thinking and research  (ORIC)
• adaptable for users context (SPACE)
• non- traditional students (disabled learners - SPACE, WBL - Learning from WoERK, OEBEE)
• non-educational institutions (lighting companies, national institutions, fashions shows - SPACE, healthcare professionals, schools and wider community - SCOOTER)  

Student generated OERs

• student generated OERS (CPD4HE, RLT Performing Arts, ACTOR, O4B, Learning to Teach Inclusively, SCOOTER, SPACE) 

IPR issues

• 3rd party content (DELILA,  Learning from WOeRK, OSIER)
• partner barriers (commercial publishers and international organisations - LEARNING LEGACIES, newspapers - LEARNING LEGACIES, Learning from WoeRK)
• legal notices on resources (LEARNING LEGACIES)
• resource intensive (PORSCHE) 
• IPR policies not reflecting changing attitudes to using open content (PORSCHE) 

 

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

Strand evidence: omac 

 

---

OER collections

How are different means of making OERs discoverable within disciplines effective?

Strand evidence: collections

 

What issues arise in collecting and making OERs available dynamically?

Strand evidence: collections

 

How are different ways of organising, and guiding users to and through resources effective?

Strand evidence: collections

 

What selection and quality processes are appropriate for dynamic and dynamically collected OERs?

Strand evidence: collections

 

What issues arise in linking social technology-based marketing and community portals to resources from a number of institutions?

Strand evidence: collections

---