OER Synthesis and Evaluation / Evidence-ReleaseAndUse
  • 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.



Page history last edited by Lou McGill 7 years, 8 months ago

Back to main report

Back to Evidence - main page

see also


Evidence - Discovery ReUse and Accessibility

Evidence - Collections and subject disciplines

Evidence - Technical/hosting issues

Evidence - OER being adopted and used


Releasing and using OERs

OER Release/ Publishing models

 different OER publishing models, the role of collaborations


Themes strand

CORE-SET (CORE-SET final report) | ReACTOR (ReACTOR Final report) |  Opening up a future in business (Future in business Final Report)COMC (COMC Final report) | PARIS (PARIS Final Project Report)  HALS OER (HALS OER Final Project Report)PublishOER (PublishOER final report) | Great Writers (Great Writers Final Report)|  ALTO UK (ALTO UK Final Report)  | ORBIT (ORBIT Final Report) | DEFT (DEFT Final Report)    | FAVOR (FAVOR Final Report) | SESAME (SESAME Final Report) |


OMAC strand

BLOCKeD (BLOCKeD Final Report) |   Digital Literacy and Creativity (Digital Literacy and Creativity Final Report | Academic Practice in Context (Academic Practice in Context Final report) | Teeside Open Learning Units (Teeside Open Learning Units Final Report)



In what ways have collaborations with partners in the same or other sectors (including commercial publishers) supported the development, collection and release of OERs?

  • Our approach to building collaborations to extend open education activities beyond the university was to build on existing relations and forge new ones. Partners included public and private sector, commercial and non-commercial. (HALSOER Final report)
  • Almost without exception, in initial discussions to talk about the concept of OER and the use of the Creative Commons license, teams and managers wholeheartedly supported the idea. We established working terms of reference and connected academic and external teams. Collaborators provided assets, data, case study materials and images which the HALS team packaged up into effective educational resources. These were then used in both the university and the professional setting.  (HALSOER Final report)
  • One of the HALS project objectives was to work with Oxford University Press (OUP) to explore the synergies and tensions between open education and publishing. The goal was to release OER to support a series of textbooks “Fundamentals of Biomedical Science”. For example, hyperlinks to several of our microbiology OER accompanied the “Medical Microbiology” textbook (Available, http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199549634/). (HALSOER Final report)
  • Our approach was to review existing biomedical science resources, explore the use of OER and open practices with the publishers, and to monitor the benefits and pitfalls of using OER within their business model. (HALSOER Final report)
  • Initial discussions by the working group focussed on the practicalities of linking or embedding content from publishers as OER into WikiVet or other teaching material. The consensus was that simply transferring digital text from a textbook into an OER was of limited value. The richer media assets such as images and diagrams along with assessment resources were considered to be of greater importance. In addition the publishers suggested that auxiliary digital resources provided with a textbook such as videos, web pages and interactive media might actually be made open instead of protecting them behind a password. (PublishOER Final Report)
  •  In all discussions with publishers, the issue of what proportion of publishers’ content could be released as an OER had always been a concern. In the past, whilst working with Manson Publishing Ltd and CABI, up to 10% of a textbook had been used as a guide and this was also agreed to be an acceptable amount by Elsevier. However, in practice the amount of content received was less than this figure, and it proved challenging to map it to the case studies under development. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • It was decided to investigate the potential of this scenario by embedding content provided by the publisher into the WikiVet site. The partners agreed that these resources would inherit the same CC licence (BY-NC-ND 3.0). In discussion with the publishers it was felt that these resources could include sets of images, flashcards, assessments or related media. In return for providing the content, URL links to the original resource on the publisher’s e-commerce platform would be provided. This could potentially assist the publisher in monitoring traffic to their site from the OER. A facility to rate the OER was also proposed. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • Work has commenced to develop this model (electures) for use by undergraduate students as a revision tool as they moved from pre-clinical to clinical studies. It was additionally intended to use it as a wider OER for access outside the veterinary school domain. The concept of marketing these eLectures on a micro-payment system is being explored as a way of financing the development of more free-to-view content on WikiVet. Clearly this commercialisation of OER presents a number of significant challenges, not least in encouraging the publishers to agree to licence their content for resale in a different context from that originally intended and agreed with the author. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • The overall feedback from internal discussions at Elsevier was that decisions were made on a case-by-case basis for resources of the sort considered in the case studies. No global policy could be applied. This obviously made progress slow. The main reason for allowing open access resources to be used and reused was the need to drive sales directly or indirectly, coupled with a consideration of the wider benefits of resultant partnerships. Another major issue was that CC licences were disliked, as there was a perception by some staff at Elsevier that by applying such licences lost control of their content. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • from RVC presentation (Nick Short)
    • Publishers may have variable ownership over their assets which may make working with resources created in the past too difficult and time consuming.

    • Working with publishers can strengthen relationships between the HE and private sector

    • Mash up resources may be too complex to not only design but also to maintain in the future.

    • It may be of benefit to consider licensing structure for new resources rather than trying to use resources already in existence.

    • Publishers are more content to allow free use of their content within the limits of an organisation as opposed to totally open content. (PublishOER Educational workshop 24/01/13) 


OER release/publishing models

Through what means (eg. platform, format, interface) have you made OER available to your stakeholder group?

  • The developing team quickly learned that it would be sensible to design a common interface that could be used across all mobile platforms.  When thinking through the design of this several factors needed to be addressed such as:
    • How a user would navigate the resource from a touch screen i.e. zoom function.
    • Resolution and screen size.  A base resolution of 1024 x 768 was decided upon.
    • Processing power/memory limitations meant that the project needed to create applications that will run on the weakest platform, but that will also look good on the strongest.  It is therefore important to ensure that the models are kept as simple as possible whilst remaining realistic and understandable. Likewise, textures will be kept small and reused where possible. 
    • Legibility – what is legible on a computer screen may not be so legible once on an ipad or iphone.
    • The hover feature is regularly used within 3d applications and this is not an available option for touch screens.
    • Application size – only 20mb texture ram is available on the iphone for example.
    • Screen rotation/orientation – The design of the resources do not lend themselves to have optional portrait/landscape orientation and the project has decided that all resources will be viewed as a landscape application. (ReACTOR Interim report)
  • The project decided the commercial licence would allow the resources to be disseminated to a wider audience, however Apple Inc., would not issue a licence as Doncaster College is not a registered company. The project then applied for an educational licence and was told that the College is not registered on the International University database and so the licence was refused. Oddly, a few weeks later the project then received a call to say that the application for a commercial licence had been approved and the licence was then issued. It is not clear what happened here but projects looking to create applications for mobile devices in the future should be aware that there are challenges around the release of licences from Apple Inc. (ReACTOR Final report)
  • no matter how hard they try to keep the applications the same across all the platforms, device-to-device does not mean that they will have the same fluidity, resolution, graphic quality and general working compatibility. The team knew this could be an issue from the start of the development of the resources, but until actually designing for the different platforms, we were unsure just how much the differences would show. The team wish to highlight that there will always be differences between devices as if all devices were the same the new market for tablet and smartphone devices would not be as vast as it is. (ReACTOR Final report)
  • We believe that an agile and open approach to publishing OER is appropriate, and would like to suggest that OER should also be developed in an open and participatory way where possible (rather than just be deployed openly). Developing resources in a fairly public way on our project site allows for early feedback from others. (ORBIT Interim Report)
  •  small offshoot - of project - did survey about jorum use - result - very positive -  being asked has got people on there and reflecting positively. (Teeside Open Learning Units Interim Report)
  •  Carry out a small pilot exercise with each partner with an institutionally branded open space in a social media platform to share OERs (http://process.arts.ac.uk/). The platform is based on the popular open source web content management system Drupal (http://drupal.org/) and provides a user-friendly interface, rich media tools and easy integration with the rest of the Web 2.0 infrastructure such as Twitter, Facebook and Google etc. A longer-term aim was also to explore the feasibility of extending such a service to support other UK art and design HEIs. (ALTO Final Report)
  • Much of the teaching is studio-based and involves a mentoring relationship between teacher and student rather than more traditional content-centric didactic methods which lend themselves more easily to the standard model of OER content creation. So, there is a need to capture and represent the hidden and invisible elements of teaching and learning that occurs during these courses in a useful and meaningful way
  • Creating OERs (and models for future production) for ‘endangered’ subjects that are in danger of ceasing to be taught in the UK, such as weaving and ceramics. ALTO UK Final Report


  • Information Professionals (this applies mainly to the UAL as the project was using UAL’s infrastructure) have been involved in consultations with the project manager. There is recognition that the support for hosting and managing institutional learning resources is a new departure for the IT unit and that it needs to be factored into strategic planning. The cloud feasibility study carried out by the project is being discussed to compare internal and external hosting and support options and costs. (ALTO Final Report)
  • Create and release OERs by:
    • a.     Co-creation of resources with academics in FE and HE partner institutions
    • b.    Negotiation of release of content from commercial publishing partners (ALTO Final Report)
  • The working title for this is model is ONCE (Open Networks for Culture and Education), which aims to create a reusable and adaptable model for providing appropriate technical, cultural and policy support for OER development and collaboration in the Art and Design sector for further information and a proposed roadmap for future development please see http://alto.arts.ac.uk/943/. (ALTO Final Report)
  •  The term “Digital Bloom” refers to a combination of online and offline activities whose aim was to explore the intersections of digital literacy and creativity as well as reflect on the ways in which creativity informs learners’ digital literacy practice, both within and outside of formal education institutions. Importantly, the Digital Bloom strand was related to the efforts of the team to explore the concept of the Open Textbook and its aims. (DEFT Final Report)
  • "Digital Bloom" strand of the project was realised through a showcase of the creative art of children involved with the project (Digital Bloom installation) exhibited at Sheffield Children's Festival in July 2012 and through creation of an online space (Digital Bloom) where users can contribute by adding their own stories exploring meanings of digital literacy and each of the stories is represented by a flower. (DEFT Final Report)
  •  The project encouraged tutors to publish their resources on the LanguageBox, a repository which is hosted at the University of Southampton and managed by LLAS. The project management team decided that we would ask tutors to use only this repository in the first instance, for a number of reasons: firstly, we were very familiar with it and have technical and managerial control over it which means that we can offer technical and administrative support; from a management perspective it would help us keep track of FAVOR resources; the site itself is very simple to use and we did not wish to overwhelm people who are new to open working by offering a plethora of other options to use (although we made clear from the outset that we intended resources ultimately to be published in a range of online spaces); the site is focussed around a particular community of practitioners (language teachers) and so represents a ‘disciplinary comfort zone’ for tutors, and finally, the site itself is designed to support a community of practice. (FAVOR Final Report)
  • Two significant technical changes were made to the LanguageBox for the project: the addition of a group function and a discussion forum. The discussion forum has not been used, but the group function has played an important role in local community-building with each partner creating a group for their institution and some tutors creating interest groups for their own languages. The group function allows users to publish their work as part of a group of users and so gives a level of coherence to different collections of materials. In addition, minor technical changes were made to the interface of the LanguageBox based on tutor feedback (e.g. a link was put on each profile page to enable users to see all of the resources deposited by that user). (FAVOR Final Report)
  • Great Writers Inspire reuses an existing technical framework based on tried and tested workflows embedded during 3 years of OER projects to ensure longevity and ease of maintenance. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • the delivery platform was based upon the content management system used by the Podcasting Team at Oxford for http://www.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/. Adopting this Drupal 7 framework as closely as possible offered significant advantages in terms of long-term maintenance and sustainability. As a subsite of http://www.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/, Great Writers Inspire would be hosted by the central server management team within IT Services. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • Content ingest would be based upon existing workflows as much as possible to ensure that common working standards were followed minimising the impact on non-project staff. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • The project required a web presence early to help with engagement activities and a mechanism for early content capture as the Drupal site would take some time to develop. A WordPress blog was set up for this purpose, and adopted the writersinspire.org URL until the public beta version of the Drupal site was ready in April 2012. WordPress was chosen as it was free, easy to use for all contributors and offered minimal user management. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • This shared development approach and the adoption of common working practices across the three sites ensured future maintenance has been made easier for permanent staff members outside of the project team, thereby supporting the longer-term sustainability of the site. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • Drupal offers several benefits as an OER platform
    • Almost unlimited scope to catalogue items.
    • Cataloguing is automatically added to each web page. R
    • ich, nested and interlinked taxonomies can be created simply and quickly.
    • Each taxonomy term has a page generated for it as soon as it is created
    • Each taxonomy term can support other attributes, such as pictures and descriptions, and these are automatically added to the page.
    • Support for additional modules and theme development to allow for specific requirements.  (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • With one exception, all episodes in Great Writers Inspire are stored as web links, the exception being essays which are stored within the Drupal system. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • Jorum – Tests were undertaken to investigate how to include the OER from Great Writers Inspire in Jorum. Initially a Dublin core metadata-rich RSS feed was tested, but sadly this wasn’t compatible with the schema Jorum uses. Therefore a .csv file with the necessary cataloguing fields and URL of each episode was exported from Drupal and provided to the Jorum team. (Great Writers Inspire Final Report)
  • The technical development in the first phase of the project saw extremely rapid development of a usable prototype platform, something which was very valuable for the project overall, but was very challenging for our developer. From this experience we re-examined our platform specification and build process to ensure it worked for both the project and the developer going forward. (SESAME Final Report)
  • The final phase of the project was to offer all tutors the opportunity to create a site for their course and to promote the resources available via the open.conted.ox.ac.uk site to all tutors and students of the Weekly Classes programme at the beginning of the 2012/13 academic year. This work included integrating project activities in to the mainstream delivery processes of the Weekly Classes programme, offering face-to-face training to all interested tutors, and developing on-demand training resources for those who were not able to attend a face-to-face session. (SESAME Final Report)
  • our release process was refined in light of feedback from the OpenSpires team about their experience of working with the University’s iTunes U and OER release documentation. This documentation has very formal legal wording and had led to some potential contributors being put off from releasing the material they had produced when they were asked to sign the paperwork at the final stage of the release process. As a result of this feedback, and also advice from the JISC Legal Service, we put in place a release process that starts with a briefing note, written in plain English, that explains the implications of openly releasing content, which potential contributors were asked to sign to say they had read and understood and that they would like an account set up on the OER platform. The platform then requires the contributor to agree to the terms of the standard University release documentation. This approach has worked very well for the Sesame project, allowing any participants not happy with openly licensing their material to make an informed choice at the outset and avoid participants dropping out at the point of releasing their material. (SESAME Final Report)
  •  The ORBIT team instituted a defined process of sourcing, assessing as well as commissioning the creation or re-purposing of interactive teaching materials that have since become the 200+ lesson ideas populating the ORBIT resource bank. We also created an ORBIT initial review form to assess all potential OER interactive teaching materials. This was an adaptation of the successful initial review form and OER production process developed for the Open University’s OpenLearn project (McAndrew et al, 2009). (ORBIt Final report)
  • To host resources and facilitate collaboration, the ORBIT wiki using MediaWiki technology was set up, based on a previous installation of a wiki for the OER4Schools project. The ORBIT wiki showcases the interactive lesson ideas, related resources and signposts to other relevant OER for STEM-based subjects. The ORBIT wiki has also been adapted throughout the project to take into consideration the feedback of the main stakeholders: teachers who have tested it at various stages of its development and made many suggestions for improvements. Towards the end of the project, formal user-testing was carried out, as reported below. While another content management system (CMS) could have been utilised, the wiki architecture allows editors - who need no prior programming knowledge - to connect resources in a more agile way, and to build a resource bank with semantic relations constructed between the various sorts of resource object (lesson ideas, pedagogic articles, teaching tools, and readings). (ORBIt Final report)
  •  developed a distinct ORBIT brand which included several marketing items and a logo. The creation of this branding subsequently generated very positive feedback on a number of occasions, including at various conferences (e.g. the 2012 World OER Congress in Paris). It also enabled teachers to identify with the ORBIT project. (ORBIt Final report)
  • We engaged in some initial discussion with the Learning Registry through the JLeRN Experiment to make our paradata available in RDF format through the use of the semantic mediawiki extension. We intend to pursue this further in the coming months. (ORBIT Final report)
  •  In our review of teacher resources in the National Archives, a set of resources was highlighted by the National STEM Centre - Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools, and Strengthening Teaching and Learning in Science Through Using Different Pedagogies.  These OGL resources were acquired and posted directly on our website in editable (.doc) format.  In addition, various materials were ‘harvested’ from these as individual teacher education resources.  
    While these resources were added as ‘stand alone’ to our resource bank, they had originally been provided with DVDs of classroom practice to support professional development.  After clarifying that these would indeed be covered under the OGL, we sought to obtain them.  Our libraries did not hold all of the DVDs in question, thus, in the first instance the DfE were contacted. They confirmed that they no longer held copies of these DVDs, but viewed projects such as ORBIT as very much in line with their vision of teacher-led professional development. This was a direct endorsement of the rationale of the ORBIT project: to discover such valuable but disappearing resources and make them available to the teaching community. Following this contact, the Institute of Education (IoE) (University of London) and their Digital Education Resource Archive (DERA) were contacted. This has led to collaboration on the DVD content, which DERA (as a database repository for documents) is not well equipped to handle.
    The original DVDs (in full format) are archived in the institutional DSpace repository and we have created new copies to replace missing DVDs in both our library and the IoE library. (
    ORBIT Final report)
  •  Most materials required a level of adaptation and, with this in mind, the ORBIT production process was established to assess and develop them. (ORBIT Final report)
  •  OER were distributed via national and international repositories (Jorum.ac.uk, Merlot.ac.uk), via an institutional repository “Midwifery Open Resources for Education” (MORE, http://more.library.dmu.ac.uk/), and all other OERs were released onto a search-engine optimised website (http://www.biologycourses.co.uk)... For part of the project OER were bundled into “courses” using Moodle to provide online university taster materials, and other taster materials were provided by local Leicestershire schools and colleges as part of widening participation initiatives.(HALS OER Final Project Report)
  • The Ear Foundation chose to employ the skills of a third party developer to build bespoke interactive learning objects, rather than using Xerte Online Toolkits. The decision to use the contractor aligned with Ear Foundation strategy to outsource work in this area and following this bespoke approach was their preferred option for achieving a consistent look and feel matching their brand style. The Ear Foundation had budgeted for this development time as part of the project proposal process; however the focus of that development time shifted from using Xerte online toolkits to bespoke development.
    This model is different to the one adopted by the University of Nottingham when creating interactive e-learning content, as working with staff to up-skill them in the use Xerte Online toolkits is the preferred option. However, the model does align with the Ear Foundation strategy of outsourcing development of this kind, to ensure that staff members, such as speech therapists and education coordinators can concentrate on their core roles. (PARiS Final report)
  • The concept of eLecture; a short lecture of approximately 15 minutes duration, concentrating on a specific topic with links to other resources, was explored. Academics were asked to record one lecture each on a specific topic and were given a selection of Elsevier resources to use and refer to. These resources included veterinary books and related ancillary material. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • Selecting resources to fit a planned lecture was challenging: the right image was often not available and it was time consuming to search through available resources. It was found that drawing a diagram or looking for CC images, using sites such as Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), was generally easier and faster. A further problem was that each individual image had to be checked for third party rights before it could be accepted for use -The team concluded that the lecture structure was probably too complex and ambitious to complete within the project lifespan. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • Little attention seems to have been given, in our experience, to the potential for new products based on re-purposing existing ones. There was a high probability that books republished in more flexible and usable ways could be resold to existing customers (in the same way that people purchased digital versions of vinyl records that they already owned) where new functionality could be introduced, and the price was right. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • Greater attention on market research was required in order to understand the potential for volume sales. Print-on-demand services could be used for back-catalogue, however it seemed likely that publishers were in possession of many titles that would never be released in large print-run format, but which could be excellent for release as OER. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • discussion around publishing scenarios from PublishOER Project http://www.medev.ac.uk/blog/suzannes-blog/2012/feb/6/publishoer-scenarios-to-inform-research-with-publishers/ (PublishOER workshop 24/01/13) 
  • The OERs we have made fit together as a Moodle course, although they also separate out into a linked but clearly defined set of Moodle books. (Future in business Final Report)
  • Whilst the resource has been created with the needs of the 16-19 year old age group in mind the range of business people who have contributed to its making is such that it can be used with any student group to raise business awareness, whether as part of the curriculum, as careers and placement work or to foster discussion with students on how a successful business is built. (Future in business Final Report)
  • Early on in the project we realised that our ability to use YouTube to disseminate project material was probably not viable as 6th form and FE Colleges ban access to it in student resource areas although they are now opening up access in classrooms (source: JISC-RSC advisor) . For this reason we have decided to put the Moodle Course onto the open community Moodle repository Mooch as well as onto the Jorum repository.  We are also working on a short showreel to flag the availability of this material through YouTube.(Future in business Final Report)


The COMC project did not release OER in a conventional sense - their open content is part of an open course and reuslting materials from staff and student activities.

  • Each of the open classes has a slightly different feel; each makes use of, and makes available, particular kinds of resources and web/social media platforms. Picbod (“Picturing the Body”) makes extensive use of twitter and its hashtag logics as research discussion tools – as well as using podcasts,,vimeo and flicker to collate talks and images. Creative Activism has quickly established itself in peer-to peer networks – as well as using vimeo twitter and itunesU. Living in a digital world has focused on student content creation and using blogging – with flicker etc, - as a means of archiving pan-European research projects.  (COMC Final Report)
  • The Blog collates all these resources, such as the lectures and seminar activities – each open class session also include notes, recordings and student annotations - both sequentially as a series of post and under specific categories and through linking to additional external site, such as Vimeo, or Podbean. The over-arching aim of making this material available is to lower the barriers to anyone accessing these classes and resources. The blog acts like a ‘hub’ within a networked community.   (COMC Final Report)
  • The schedule also identifies focused practical/technical specialist skills sessions, which are of course delivered Face-to-Face, but which also often have permanently recorded version in the form of the activity brief, audio, or video recordings. Each of the sessions is also supported by other resources such as pdf notes and guidance, as well as external links to further guidance and/or to the practitioners web-site.    (COMC Final Report)
  • Whilst making resources such as lectures, seminars, professional master-classes, skills workshops and assignment tasks freely available is an important step in ‘opening our educational practices, giving an open window  onto what we do, a more significant aspect of these Open Classes is the extent to which they are actively networked and connected - and the new kinds of relationships and activities this enables.      (COMC Final Report) 

  • Alongside this, the tutors run a #Picbod twitter feed which collates ideas events commentary and discussion. The face-to-face class has about 30 students, and through the twitter feed, 276 followers - who obviously continue to follow the class. During the live period of the class about 10,000 people access the blog or one of its spaces.  This communication feed becomes more interesting when used in conjunction with the Hashtag, #Picbod. This hashtag of course acts as a connective – aggregating device – pulling anyone using, or searching for the tag into the community and discussions. The use of hashtags is a key aspect of the move towards the collaborative production of content within this class (and others) – so students and other contributors might tweet notes, thoughts, comments, questions, or requests for help /advice to their peers. This conversation therefore, hugely enriches the original ‘class content of notes, tasks and briefs.     (COMC Final Report)       





  • The process used to complete this work began with creating iBook versions of the existing U-Now modules using the iBook Author17 software. The iBook Author software allows a widget-driven design process and, in conjunction with Apple Connect and Apple Publisher accounts, supports easy publication to the iBook store. Due to concerns over large book size being a potential barrier to download, especially for those with 16GB iPads, all of the iBooks will be available for download in two parts. At the time of writing this report, parts one and two of Arts and Humanities are available for download on the iBook store. Three other titles will be submitted to Apple for review and inclusion in the iBook store as part of PARiS project output. (PARiS Final Report)
  • Once all of the planned publications are available in iBook form through the iBook store, work will begin to also create EPUB versions of the content, to ensure that the content is available on multiple mobile and eBook reader platforms. (PARiS Final Report)
  •  The open textbook is hosted on a Wordpress platform and constructed in a way which allows for its parts to be disaggregated, reused and repurposed (subject to Creative Commons license conditions). (DEFT Final Report)
  • The open textbook is the key output of the project in the form of an interactive website where users will be able to engage with OERs released in the context of the project through a customisable "thinking space". This way, they will be able to create their own personalised version of the open textbook which is relevant to their context and level of engagement with digital literacy and openness. This aspect of the textbook will add interactivity to the resource, allowing the user to add their tags, share and comment on the material. Our decision to engage with the format of the open textbook is informed by our attempt to make reading a collective experience by enabling rich interactions, and tools for personalisation, social, device independence. Through the Open Textbook, we want to offer users access to customised content, and also give them the opportunity to select, store and re-use content. (DEFT Final Report)
  • It proved difficult to find suitable Elsevier resources that could be linked on their site. Most content was password protected and so was therefore not publicly accessible. Samples of books were provided on ExpertConsult (http://www.expertconsultbook.com/) but only the first paragraph of each chapter was viewable, which was very limiting. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • Due to issues that arose whilst trying to satisfy this scenario using Elsevier content, we asked for permission to use resources already made available by Manson Publishing Ltd. They provided a sample chapter for many of their books in PDF format via their website (http://www.mansonpublishing.com). It was possible to link to these from relevant WikiVet pages and a link to purchase the book via their website was also included. (PublishOER Final Report)
  • summary of business models
    •  Low cost online versions of books;
    •  API access to fragmented sources allowing cross book and cross publisher searching;
    •  Mashed up (new) versions of books ;
    •  Metadata access to content discovery;
    •  Credit system for capturing exact use of assets (which asset, where, when, how often, who for, etc.).);
    •  Micropayments;
    •  Routine publication of parts of published works;
    •  Advertiser pays for content access. (PublishOER Final Report)
































The schedule also identifies focused practical/technical specialist skills sessions, which are of course delivered Face-to-Face, but which also often have permanently recorded version in the form of the activity brief, audio, or video recordings.    











Comments (0)

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