Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
University of Leicester
Open Educational Resource (OER)
Toolkit
UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER
Dr. Samuel Nikoi – OER Evaluator (Project OTTER)
(August 2010)
(Email:[email protected])
[Found at: http://tiny.cc/0iwm9]
2
CONTENT PAGE
OERs in global higher education
page
1.0. Introduction to Open Educational Resources (OERs) 4
2.0. Definition of Open Educational Resources 5
3.0. Key drivers for increased interest in OERs 5
4.0. Institutions involved in OER development around the world 6
5.0. Arguments in favour of OERs in global higher education 7
6.0. Benefits of OERs to academic institutions 7
7.0. Key and burning issues in OER development and use 8
University of Leicester
8.0. Open Educational Resources at the University of Leicester 10
9.0. OER put‐up and take‐down guidelines 11
10.0. The CORRE framework for transforming teaching materials into OERs 14
11.0. OERs and copyright 21
12.0. Research evidence on OERs at the University of Leicester 24
13.0. The future of OERs at the University of Leicester 26
14.0. Important resources 27
15.0. References 28
16.0. OER Bibliography 29
3
OERs in global higher
education
4
1.0. Introduction to Open Educational Resources (OERs)
Openness has become a defining quality of 21st century society driven by developments in
new information and communication technologies. The term is associated with values such as
freedom, participation, empowerment and collaboration (Straub, 2008). One effect of the
global drive towards openness on higher education is the growing interest nationally and
internationally in what is now termed “Open Educational Resource” or OER. Increased
interests in OERs are driven partly by developments in open source and open access
software’s and also the challenges faced by many higher educational institutions in an
increasingly competitive world. Protagonist of the philosophy of OERs believes that their
development and availability will help nourish the kind of participatory culture of learning,
creating, sharing and cooperation that a rapidly changing knowledge society needs (The Cape
Town Declaration, 2007). OERs are also seen as having the potential and promise to obviate
demographic, economic, and geographic educational boundaries and to promote life‐long
learning and personalised learning. (Yaun,, MacNie, and Kraan 2008)
One of the key visions of the University of Leicester is to become Britain’s top university for
student satisfaction and teaching quality. Amongst the many strategies adopted by the
university to achieve this vision is “innovation in teaching and learning through the
application of e‐learning” with openness seen as a key strand in the implementation strategy
(University of Leicester, 2009). The University of Leicester’s commitment and desire to engage
with OERs specifically is backed by the Vice‐Chancellor’s Advisory Committee’s decision
regarding the OTTER project, one of the seven JISC and Higher Education Academy funded
institutional pilot projects on OERs
“The outcomes of the OTTER pilot will inform the university’s future policy on Open
Educational Resources (OERs). BDRA, in collaboration with the Library and all participating
departments, will undertake the research and development to establish evidence.” (Vice
Chancellor’s Advisory Committee’s)
As a pilot project at the University of Leicester, OTTER was an exemplar for the long‐term
adoption of the concept of Open Educational Resources.
5
2.0. Definition of Open Educational Resources
For those new to the concept of Open Educational Resource one obvious question to be asked
is what is meant by the term “Open Educational Resource” and how can it be defined? Several
definitions can be found in the literature and a few are provided here.
‘Digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self‐learners
to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research.’ (OECD)
OERs are educational materials and resources offered freely and openly for anyone to
use and under some licences to remix, improve and redistribute.’ (Wikipedia)
Digitalized materials offered freely and openly for use and re‐use in teaching, learning
and research ( UNESCO)
3.0. Key drivers for increased interest in OERs
Several reasons account for the increased interest and developments in OERs such as
developments in open course ware and collaborative content development, availability of
funding and emerging flexible copyright frameworks. Here are a few:
Drive towards universal access to education (The Cape Town Declaration )
Globalisation and increased competition in Higher Education (OECD)
Growing number of free and open source software’s (UNESCO)
Increased OER investments ( Hewlett Foundation, HEFCE, Obama initiative)
Developments in Creative Commons licence (Yaun, MacNie, and Kraan 2008).
6
4.0. Institutions involved in OER development around the world
There are currently over 3,000 courses available from over 300 universities. Some of the key players are: Country OER programmes
UK
• University of Leicester ‐ http://tiny.cc/c9v1h
• Open University ‐ “Open Learn” http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/
• University of Nottingham ‐ BERLiN http://unow.nottingham.ac.uk/berlin.html
• University of Oxford ‐ OpenSpires http://openspires.oucs.ox.ac.uk/
USA
• MIT Open Courseware project ‐ http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
• Rice University ‐ Connexions http://cnx.org/
• Utah State University ‐ USU OCW http://ocw.usu.edu/
EUROPE ParisTech OCW. ‐ http://graduateschool.paristech.fr/?langue=EN
MORIL. A Pan‐European OERs initiative ‐ http://moril.eadtu.nl/
ASIA • China Open Res. for Educ. Consortium ‐ http://www.core.org.cn/en/
• Japanese OCW Consortium ‐ http://www.jocw.jp/
OTHERS
• OER Africa ‐ http://www.oerafrica.org/
• WikiEducator ‐ http://wikieducator.org/Main_Page
• AEShareNEt in Australia - http://www.aesharenet.com.au/
7
5.0. Arguments in favour of OERs in global higher education
Several reasons have been put forward by higher educational institutions involved in OERs.
They divide in push and pull arguments (OECD)
a. Push arguments i.e. threats for not sharing
• Traditional academic values of openness to knowledge will be marginalised by
market forces such as Microsoft or Apple if higher educational institutions do not
take the lead in OER development and dissemination
b. Pull arguments i.e. gains for sharing:
• Faster technical and scientific developments
• Free sharing reinforces societal development and diminishes social inequalities
6.0. Benefits of OERs to academic institutions
a. Corporate benefits
Increased institutional visibility
A showcase for attracting new students
Better use of available resources leading to cost cutting of content development
Reach out to new groups of people without access to higher education
Improved quality of learning materials and stimulate internal innovation
Develop institutional reputation as a socially responsible
b. Individual benefits
Sharing can stimulates further innovation leading to recognition by peers
Individual publicity and visibility within the academic community
Potential for collaboration with academics in institutions around the world
Potential for commercialising a version of OER produced
8
7.0. Key and burning issues in OER development and use
A number of issues with regards to OER can be found in the literature (OECD, 2007; McGill, L.,
et al 2008; Yaun, MacNie, and Kraan 2008). The issues listed here are by no means exhaustive.
a. Policies: This pertains to institutional mandates and strategic actions for taking OERs
forward similar to open access research mandates:
Institutional strategy for embedding OERs in teaching and learning
Access options for OERs
Staff support and capacity building
Put‐up and take‐down policies
b. Sustainability: This pertains to funding models to make OERs more sustainably.
Examples of existing funding models are as follows:
• Institutional model e.g. MIT OCW
• Donations e.g. Wikipedia Apache Foundation
• Contributor pay e.g. Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Sponsorship e.g. MIT iCampus with Microsoft
• Governments e.g. The United Nations
c. Quality
• Assessment of the quality enhancement of OER production
• Keeping materials up‐to‐date and in multiple repositories
d. Technical
• Interoperability issues and metadata standards
• Tracking and assessing the value of OERs to teaching and learning
e. Legal
Copyright ownership of materials
Appropriate Creative Commons licence
f. Target audience
• Formal or informal
• Developing countries or global public
9
University
of
Leicester
10
8.0. Open Educational Resources at the University of Leicester
The University of Leicester’s commitment and desire to engage in OERs is backed by the Vice‐
Chancellor’s Advisory Committee’s decision regarding the OTTER project. OTTER was an
exemplar for the long‐term adoption of the concept of Open Educational Resource at the
University of Leicester. The project was funded by the JISC and Higher Education Academy
and ran from May 2009 to April 2010. As a pilot, OTTER enabled the evaluation of systems
and processes designed to support individuals, teams and departments at the University of
Leicester to release high‐quality open educational resources for free access, reuse and
repurposing by others under appropriate open licence. OTTER made extensive use of learning
technologies and maximised the affordances of the JorumOpen platform and Plone. The
project produced OERs equivalent to 360 credits through collaboration with twelve (12)
academic departments and one international partner:
o Archaeology and Ancient History
o Beyond Distance Research Alliance
o Criminology
o Education
o Genetics
o Institute of Lifelong Learning
o Law
o Media and Communications
o Politics and International Relations
o Psychology
o Staff Development Centre
o Student Support and Development Service
o South African Institute of Distance Education (SAIDE)
OTTER achieved the following objectives:
Promoted the University of Leicester and the UK higher education sector globally
Created opportunities to transform a significant amount of digital content at UoL that
can be reused and repurposed locally and globally.
Increased student satisfaction at the University of Leicester and elsewhere, in the
availability, quality and ease of use of learning materials.
Acted as a means of capitalising on investments made at UoL in digital content
development for different modes of learning using Web 2.0 applications.
11
9.0. OER policy and putup and takedown guidelines
The University of Leicester understands and shares the benefits of OERs and is committed to
expanding and sustaining the development and release of OERs. The University’s commitment
to OER is based on the following policy principles developed as part of the OTTER project.
a. Policy principles
i. The copyright of all materials produced by university staff, as well as by
consultants paid by the university, belongs to the university.
ii. OERs must be developed from teaching materials generated by UoL staff or by
consultants paid by the university.
iii. All authors involved in the production of materials must give permission for those
materials to be released as OERs.
iv. The latest OER put‐up (release) procedure must be followed.
v. All materials should be checked for copyright and quality before they are released.
vi. The final version of each OER must be validated by the lead author of the original
materials.
vii. The OERs will be deposited into UoL’s repository (www.le.ac.uk/oer) and other
repositories such as JorumOpen.
viii. In the event of a challenge, request or complaint, the latest OER take‐down
(removal) procedure must be followed.
b. Putup and take down guidelines
These guidelines support the teaching and learning strategy which commits to ‘providing a
high‐quality educational experience for all its students, and promoting excellence in learning
and teaching, and further, ‘an awareness of, and involvement in, the informal curriculum.
These guidelines also inform a future extension of the ‘Open Access’ mandate beyond
research output to include teaching output. They are in line with existing copyright guidelines
which seek to protect all content created by staff.
The university currently has a policy on ‘Open Access’ focused on research output through the
Leicester Research Archive (LRA). This Open Access mandate does not cover teaching
materials. The put‐up and take down guidelines is to clarify current practice and approaches
to the production, release and removal of OERs available through UoL’s OER repository.
12
The put‐up take‐down guidelines are based on the following principles:
The legality of making OERs freely and openly available
Transparency of the process of releasing and taking down OERs
Quality assurance of the process of producing OERs
Sustainability and usability of OERs
Consistency between research and teaching outputs
OERs as a tool for enhanced institutional visibility
c. Process for releasing OERs
Person responsible at each stage: 1 & 3 OER Manager; 2 & 6 Author(s); 4 IPR Officer; 5 Learning Technologist
Produced by UoL staff?
No
Teaching materials received by OER team
Permission given by Author(s)?
OER has passed quality test?
OER has been IPR cleared?
OER formatted to UoL standards?
OER validated?
OER RELEASED
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
OER not released
13
d. Process for removing OERs
Despite the OTTER OER team’s efforts, there are circumstances when UoL may be obliged to
remove OERs made available. For example, it is possible that the content becomes a subject of
dispute, that UoL’s attention is drawn to factual inaccuracies, or that the OER is found to
infringe the rights of others. The procedure to be followed to remove OERs will be as follows:
Person responsible: (1) OER Manager; (2) Author(s); (3) IPR Officer; (4) Learning Technologist; (5) external advisor(s)
Notify complainant (1)
UoL receives request or complaint
Acknowledgement (1)
Valid complaint? (1)
Legal nature? (1)
Initial assessment (1)
Temporarily remove (4)
Yes No
Merit? (1 to 5)
Assessment (1 to 5)
Release new version (4)
END
Permanently remove (4)
Fixable? (1 to 5)
Issues addressed (1) (2) (3)
(4)
Reinstate OER (4)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
14
10.0. The CORRE framework for transforming teaching materials into OERs
One major outcome of the OTTER project was an integrated framework called ‐ CORRE:
Content‐Openness‐Reuse/Repurpose‐Evidence – designed to support the evaluation
and transformation of existing teaching and learning materials into Open Educational
Resources with indicative questions. The CORRE framework consists of four overarching
stages and sub stages which potential OER materials could be assessed for their quality,
accessibility, adaptability and potential usefulness. Figure 1 shows the elements of the
framework.
Each of the four stages and sub‐stages of CORRE together with indicative questions are explained below.
Formatting for accessibility Conversion Standardisation Metadata Pedagogical wrap around
Upload to repository Institutional e.g. Plone
National e.g. JorumOpen
Others
CONTENT REUSE & REPURPOSE
EVIDENCE OPENNESS
Gathering
Existing teaching materials
Credit weighting Memorandum of understanding
Transformation for usability Decoupling Scaffolding Meshing Sequencing Editing
Internal Validation
OER project team Academic partners
Students
Tracking
Downloads Adaptations User feedback Emerging user community
Screening
Learning and teaching context
Media and format Structure & layout Language Learning design
Rights clearance
Copyright IPR Licensing
External Validation
Students Librarians Educators
Non‐public teaching and learning material
Open teaching and learning material
Open Educational Resources (OERs)
CORRE: A framework for transforming teaching materials into OERs
15
1.1. C stands for Content
The “Content” stage of the CORRE evaluation process is thus focused on the operational
aspect of identifying existing materials within an institution or a department. This stage
is split into two sub‐stages namely gathering which is about collecting all relevant
content and ensuring that there are no gaps in them and secondly, screening which is a
brief appraisal of the work required in transforming the material into OERs. Table 1
explains what is involved in this process.
Table 1: Indicative questions for “gathering” and “screening” Content
Dimensions Indicative questions
Gathering
Collection a. Has the material been used in an educational context within the institution? b. Are there gaps in the materials?
Memorandum of understanding c. Has the contributing author(s) been identified? d. Has the scope of materials been defined? e. Has a memorandum of understanding been signed? f. Has an OER file type been agreed with the author(s), e.g., e-reader, PDF, etc?
g. Has the metadata been submitted by the author, including all elements agreed by the project stakeholders? (e.g. title, author(s), subject, keywords, description, level, date, relationship to other OERs)
Screening
Learning context for which the material was designed a. What is the nature of the teaching material? For example:
o Lecture notes or slides o Laboratory practical’s handout
Learning design as originally intended by the contributor b. What is the learning design, e.g., instructional? Case-based learning? Problem-based
learning or collaborative learning? etc c. Are changes required to the learning goal(s), activity, etc?
Media d. What format does the material come in e.g., print-based, podcast, video ?
Structure e. Is the material standalone or does it refer to other materials? f. Does the material need 'chunking' into subsections for easy navigation? g. Are web links embedded in the content and are they functional?
Language h. Are there editorial issues? i. Is the language offensive?
Originality and ownership
j. Are there immediate and obvious concerns about sources and third-party rights within the materials received?
16
1.2. O stands for Openness
Once the “Content” stage of CORRE is signed off, the teaching material can move into the
next stage of the evaluation process called “Openness”. Openness involves three sub‐
stages:
a. Legal
This concerns IPR clearance and ensuring that materials are legally compliant with
reference to intellectual property and copyright ownership. IPR checking can be done
by the institutions copyright administrator using the following indicative questions as a
guide.
Table 2: Indicative question of intellectual property
Dimensions Indicative questions
Copyright
a. Has the author granted permission to turn the materials into OERs? b. Are there elements of the material where copyright is owned by a 3rd party, i.e.,
content not owned by the institution? c. Is the 3rd party material still covered by copyright? (i.e. is it less than 50 years old?) d. Have the policies, terms and conditions and licences of the rights holders been
checked by a university copyright administrator?
Licensing
a. Has the 3rd party material been acknowledged in the correct manner and have all licence requirements met?
b. Have all 3rd party right holders granted written permission for the material to be used as OER?
c. If a quote or charge has been supplied for the use of 3rd-party material, is the quote acceptable, or is it cost effective to negotiate?
a. If there are multiple contributors (e.g. co-authors, illustrators, learning technologists, editors), have all contributors been identified and given permission to turn the materials into OERs?
Attribution a. Has the appropriate Creative Commons licence been determined and applied to the
material?
b. Transformation
Transformation is about enhancing the pedagogical usability of existing teaching
materials as OERs in other learning contexts. This involves:
Decoupling which involves removing material linked to institutional VLEs and
not accessible by others
Scaffolding of aligning learning goals and learning activities
Meshing of adding or replacing images, audio files or tables.
17
Sequencing of structuring the content for easy navigation.
Editing of removing inappropriate or offensive words, jargon, and acronyms.
The indicative questions for transforming teaching materials as OER are shown on
Table 3.
Table 3: Indicative questions for transformation of content
Dimensions Indicative questions
Decoupling
a. Is use of the content dependent on the institutional VLE? b. Should part of the content be removed or replaced? c. Is further material needed to be added to the content?
Scaffolding
a. Should the learning design be changed? b. Should the learning goal (s) be changed or amended? c. Should the learning activity (ties) be changed or amended?
Meshing
a. Should an image or audio file be added? b. Should images, audio files, tables/graphs be added, replaced or removed? c. Are all embedded web links active?
Sequencing
a. Is the teaching material going to be a standalone OER, or does it require information in the metadata explaining how it links to other OERs?
b. Is the material well laid out with appropriate headings? c. Is it easy to navigate through the material?
Editing
a. Have all editorial issues been resolved? b. Are there offensive materials that need to be removed? c. Have all acronyms been explained? d. Has jargon been kept to a minimum and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the
audience (at the level stated in the metadata) explained?
c. Formatting and standardisation
Formatting and standardisation relates to the technical formats of the OERs and
whether they are re‐usable or re‐adaptable in other learning context. Formatting is also
about metadata and compatible with open resource repositories. The following
indicative questions can serve as a guide on formatting and standardization teaching
materials as OER.
Table 4 Indicative questions on formatting and standardization Dimensions Indicative questions
Formatting
a. Is the material available in the agreed formats as per the memorandum of understanding?
b. Is the material standalone, and if not, are the related OERs specified in the metadata? c. Are special tools or software required by end user to use the material? If so, are they
stated? d. Does the end user require special technical help to use the material? If so, is this
stated?
Interoperability
a. Is the material available on agreed delivery platforms? b. Is the file size of the material suitable for the repository? c. Is the material compatible with other repositories? e.g. JorumOpen d. Have metadata tags been added to the learning material e.g. authors, subject area,
keywords, grade level (undergraduate or postgraduate)?
18
1.3. RR stands for Reuse/Repurpose
Re‐use and Re‐purpose is the third stage of the CORRE evaluation process. It is about
reality checking based on gathering of views and opinions from stakeholder regarding
the OERs. This can be done in two ways:
Internal with the institutions OER team, academic partners and students
External with other stakeholders outside the institution
Indicative questions for assessing the reuse/repurposing of the OERs are provided in
table 5 below.
Table 5 Indicative questions for assessing the reuse/repurposing of the OERs
Dimensions Indicative questions
OER team
a. Has the OER been IPR cleared? b. Has a suitable Creative Commons licence been assigned to the OER? c. Is the OER properly formatted for use? d. Is anything else required before the OER is released?
Academic staff
a. Is the content of the OER accurate? b. Is the title suitable? c. Are the media appropriate? d. Is the structure and layout clear for user navigation? e. Is the assigned Creative Commons licence acceptable? f. What else is required before release of the OER into a public repository?
Students
a. Is the learning goal clear? b. Is the learning activity or presentation engaging? c. Is it easy to navigate through the OER? d. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very low and 5 = very high, how would you rate the
quality of this OER? e. Are further improvements required to the OER?
Other external stakeholders
f. Is the learning goal clear? g. Is the learning activity or presentation engaging? a. Is it easy to navigate through the OER? b. Are further improvements required to the OER?
1.4. E stands for Evidence
The final stage of the CORRE evaluation process is “Evidence” concerned with assessing
the value and usefulness of OERs released through a process of tracking and gathering
end‐user feedback. This can be done using Google analytics and/or an end user survey.
Indicative questions for an end user survey on the OER are provided in table 6.
19
Table 6 Indicative questions for tracking use of the OER
Dimensions Indicative questions
Tracking
a. What is the title of the resource you used? b. From which geographical region of the world are you using this resource? c. Are you a: student, lecturer, tutor, researcher, course designer, other? (Please tick one.
If ‘other’ please tell us what your role is.) d. Did you modify, change or adapt the resource? If Yes in what way? e. Did you have any difficulties using the resource? If "Yes", can you tell us about these
difficulties? f. How useful was the resource for learning about this subject/topic? g. How would you rate the quality of resource? h. Would you recommend the resource to others? i. Are there any other comments you would like to make about the resource?
11.0. OERs and copyright
Opinions are divided on whether traditional copyright laws are harmonious with the
philosophy of open educational resources. To some, current laws are too restrictive and
make it virtually impossible to waive copyright towards OER development. Copyright is
automatically bestowed on creators. The question to be asked is what if people want
their work to be used by others without the hassle of coming each time to obtain their
permission? What if they want their work to be reused, shared and built upon by the
rest of the world? In a world where collaboration, participation and teamwork are
considered important for innovation and creativity, traditional copyright laws are no
longer deemed adequate. Thankfully, Creative Commons (CC) licensing has emerged as
an extension of existing copyright laws. Founded in 2001, CC licences make it easier for
people to share and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of
copyright. CC licences provide the legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom a
creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any
combination they like. The full legal rights of original copyright holders are unaffected
by CC licence. CC licence is currently in use, in over 50 international jurisdictions around
the world. ccLearn, a division of CC licence is dedicated to support open learning and
open educational resources. Science Commons another division within CC licence
supports web‐enabled scientific research.
a. CC licence conditions
CC licence has four set conditions as follows:
Conditions Symbols Explanation
20
Attribution (BY)
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your
copyrighted work ‐ and derivative works based upon it – but only
if they give credit the way you request it.
Share Alike (SA)
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a
licence identical to the licence that governs your work
Non‐
Commercial (NC)
You let others copy, distribute and perform your work – and
derivative works based upon it – but for non commercial
purposes only.
No Derivative
Works (ND) You let others copy, distribute and perform only verbatim copies
of your work, not derivative works based upon it
b. Licences
There are six main CC licences based on a combination of the above four conditions.
They range from the most accommodating to the most restrictive. Each licence is
described below. (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/)
Licences Symbols Explanation
Attribution
CC BY
This licence lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon
your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the
original creation. This is the most accommodating of licences
offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed
under Attribution.
Attribution
Share Alike
CC BY SA
This licence lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work
even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and
licence their new creations under the identical terms. This licence
is often compared to open source software licences. All new
works based on yours will carry the same licence, so any
derivatives will also allow commercial use.
Attribution No
Derivatives
CC BY ND
This licence allows for redistribution, commercial and non‐
commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole,
with credit to you
Attribution
Non‐
Commercial
CC BY NC
This licence lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work
non‐commercially, and although their new works must also
acknowledge you and be non‐commercial, they don’t have to
license their derivative works on the same terms.
Attribution
Non‐
Commercial
This licence lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work
non‐commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new
creations under the identical terms. Others can download and
21
Share Alike CC BY NC SA
redistribute your work just like the by‐nc‐nd licence, but they can
also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on
your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same
licence, so any derivatives will also be non‐commercial in nature
Attribution
Non‐
Commercial No
Derivatives
cc byncnd
This licence is the most restrictive of our six main licences,
allowing redistribution. This licence is often called the “free
advertising” licence because it allows others to download your
works and share them with others as long as they mention you
and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use
them commercially.
c. Who uses CC Licences
CC licences are now used by organisations, individuals and institutions from around the
world. The most notable ones include the following.
Flickr ‐ http://www.flickr.com/
Google enabled CC licence searches ‐ http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search?hl=en
Wikipedia ‐ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
The White House ‐ http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Public Library of Science:Open access journals ‐ http://www.plos.org/
MIT OpenCourseWare ‐ http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Al Jazeera ‐ http://english.aljazeera.net/
d. Copyright and OERs: Do’s and don’ts
DO use: DON’T use:
a. Creative Commons resources with a
compatible licence
a. YouTube resources which include infringing
material
b. Limited extracts from your own work b. Logos/Trademarks without permission
c. Your own photographs of everyday
objects
c. Photographs taken within restricted
environments (ie. archives, galleries,
exhibitions) without permission
d. Sources where the licence terms explicitly
permit your type of re‐use
d. Extensive extracts from your own published
work without checking your contract
e. Items out of copyright e. Items from unknown sources or where
22
copyright cannot be ascertained
f. Short quotes from published work as long
as they are properly referenced
f. Screenshots which contain identifiable
pictures or other personal information
g. Organisations providing advice and
guidance:
h. JISC ‐ JISClegal, Web2Rights project,
JISCdigitalmedia, Eduserv – Copyright
Toolkit (in conjunction with Copy‐Right
Consultants Limited)
g. And finally, don’t assume if it’s on the web it’s
fine to use – check the terms and
conditions/copyright notice or contact the site
owner
You can learn more about creative common’s licence by going to http://creativecommons.org/about/.
12.0. Research evidence on OERs at the University of Leicester
As part of the OTTER project, data was gathered from staff, students and senior
managers at the University of Leicester and students from the University College of
Falmouth, as well as Librarians in the East Midlands on their views on Open Educational
Resources (OERs). The data gathering exercise took place between December 2009 and
April 2010 utilising an online survey delivered to students and face to face interviews
with staff and senior managers across different departments of the university. Also a
workshop was organized for Librarians from across the East Midlands to find out their
views on Open Educational Resources. The full report of the study can be found at:
http://tiny.cc/9m2zy. Below is a summary of key findings.
Key findings from staff (including senior managers)
i. In general, staff support the open sharing of educational resources and see OERs
as helping to position UK HE and UoL in the world HE market. However more
evidence is needed to make a convincing case about the value/impact of OERs.
ii. Most senior managers would like to see a mandate in the form of a policy and
strategic action in order to take the OER agenda forward.
iii. Staff are happy and very keen to use OERs released through OTTER, as well as
other OERs in the public domain ‘as is’ or modified, depending on the context.
iv. OERs are seen as potentially beneficial to teaching, learning and also as
additional information resources for students
v. Staff are happy to make selected materials available as OERs based on conditions
of ownership, copyright, quality and support in ‘designing for openness’.
23
vi. A team effort, working with all stakeholders, is seen as the appropriate way
forward for OER development and use.
vii. Sustainability in terms of funding, staff capacity and support are seen as issues
which need to be resolved.
viii. Reward and recognition of academic staff are seen as key factors in successfully
promoting the generation of OERs. However, non‐financial reward is preferred.
ix. More awareness of Creative Commons licensing is needed.
x. For the future, a developmental approach around a pilot focused on generic
materials within individual colleges is preferred by some senior managers.
Key findings from students
i. Students support the open sharing of teaching and learning resources and see
their potential in enhancing the quality of the learner experience.
ii. Students find it very easy to navigate through current OERs on Plone.
iii. 96% of students rated the quality of the OTTER OERs as ‘good’ to ‘extremely
good’. The 4% who were unhappy attributed this to links in the zipped files in
the Plone site that appeared to be broken. This has been rectified.
iv. Students appear to have adequate knowledge of Creative Commons licensing, but
express concerns about the implications for the institution’s reputation in the
event that the materials are misused by third parties.
v. The preferred options for access to OERs are the institutional virtual learning
environment (VLE) and OER repositories.
vi. Students are happy with the quality of OERs produced through OTTER, based on
the concise nature of information provided as well as the structure and layout.
However, they express concern about quality and sustainability of future OERs.
vii. A third of students say they would not be willing to turn their own materials (e.g.
lecture notes) into OERs and share them with other students.
viii. Students would like to see future policies address the issue of easy access to
OERs in different formats.
Key findings from Librarians
24
i. Librarians see OERs benefitting UK Higher Education in terms of institutional
prestige, shared good practice, cost reduction and showcasing teaching
materials.
ii. The main issues of concern to Librarians are 3rd party copyright; currency and
quality of materials and funding of OERs
iii. Librarians would like to see policies that reflect management support; take up
and put down of OERs and metadata requirements.
iv. Librarians see themselves playing the roles of managers of OER repositories;
developers of generic OERs e.g. study skill materials; indexers and cataloguers of
OERs and liaison and promotion of OERs.
13.0. The future of OERs at the University of Leicester
OSTRICH which stands for OER Sustainability through Teaching & Research Innovation:
Cascading across HEIs (OSTRICH) is a continuation of the OTTER project. The OSTRICH
project is part of the HEA and JISC OER Phase 2 programme led by the Beyond Distance
Research Alliance at the University of Leicester with project partners at the University
of Bath and the University of Derby
Aims
OSTRICH will transfer and cascade the key outcomes of the OTTER project and will
enable the universities of Bath and Derby to:
• contextualise key OER lessons learnt;
• test and transfer OER models;
• devise a sustainable approach to OER development and release
Expected output
• Sustainable OER development processes.
• An improved CORRE quality and evaluation framework for OERs.
• 100 credits’ worth of materials that will be deposited into the project repository
and JorumOpen.
• A cascade model with associated guidance to enable partners to sustain the
production and release of OERs beyond the duration of OSTRICH.
25
• Opportunities for the dissemination of the OERs and associated findings within
and beyond the partnership.
• Further collaboration opportunities on OER issues across the sector
Key dates
OSTRICH begins on the 31st August 2010 and ends on the 30th August 2011. Further
information on OSTRICH can be found at www.le.ac.uk/ostrich
14.0. Important resources
a. OTTER website [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐
alliance/projects/otter]
b. OTTER OERs[http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐alliance/projects/otter/the‐oers]
c. OTTER OER blog [http://projectotter.wordpress.com/]
d. OTTER project final report [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research alliance/projects/otter/documentation/projectfinalreport.pdf]
e. CORRE framework [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐alliance/projects/otter/about‐oers/Corre‐web.pdf]
f. Put‐up take down policy. [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐alliance/projects/otter/documentation/putuptakedown.pdf]
g. Sample partnership agreement [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐alliance/projects/otter/documentation/samplepartneragreement.pdf]
h. Creating e‐books format for the Sony Reader [http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐alliance/projects/duckling/duckling‐blog/creating‐e‐book‐formats‐for‐the‐sony‐reader‐505]
26
15.0. References
1. Cape Town Open Education Declaration: Unlocking the promise of open educational resources.
Found at: http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read‐the‐declaration] accessed 17‐09‐09
2. Creative Commons. Found at: http://creativecommons.org/ [Accessed: 23 August 2010]
3. Higher Education Founding Council for England. Found at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/
4. McGill, L., et al (2008). Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing
learning materials pp. 4 & 6. http://ie‐repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/1/goodintentionspublic.pdf
5. Nikoi, S. (2010). Open Transferable Technology‐enabled Educational Resources (OTTER) project .
Stakeholder views on open educational resources. Found at: http://tiny.cc/ffplt
6. OER Sustainability through Teaching & Research Innovation: Cascading across HEIs (OSTRICH)
Found at: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond‐distance‐research‐
alliance/projects/ostrich [Accessed 23 August 2010]
7. Open Education News: Obama’s $50 million for OER: American Graduation Initiative. Found at:
http://openeducationnews.org/2009/07/15/obamas‐50‐million‐for‐oer‐american‐graduation‐
initiative/ [Accesed 23 August 2010]
8. Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development‐OECD. (2007) Giving Knowledge for
Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris: OECD‐ Educational Resources Centre
for Educational Research and Innovation. Found at:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf. [Accessed: 14 June 2010]
9. Straub, Richard. (2008). Is the world open? eLearning Papers. Found at:
www.elearningpapers.eu. 1 Nº 8. April 2008.
10. UNESCO (2009) Open educational resources: conversations in cyberspace. D’Antoni, S., & Savage,
C., (Eds). Paris: UNESCO
27
11. The University of Leicester (2009). Strategic vision to 2015. Found at:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/about/StrategicVisionUoL09.pdf [Accessed 24 August 2010].
12. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Found at: http://www.hewlett.org/ [accessed 23
August 2010
13. Wikipedia: The free encyclopaedia. Found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page [Accessed
23 August 2010]
14. Yaun,L., MacNie, S., and Kraan, W., (2008). Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and
Challenges for Higher Education. Found at : http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2008/09/oer_briefing_paper.pdf [ Accessed: 19 October 2009]
16.0. OER Bibliography
A: The Concept of Open Educational Resources (OER)
1. Atkins, D.E., Brown, J.S., Hammond, A.L., (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement:
Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Found at: http://tiny.cc/9hkr0 [accessed 26 April 2010]
2. Cape Town Open Education Declaration: Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. Found at:
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read‐the‐declaration] accessed 17‐09‐09
3. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jenson, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling Universal
Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
4. Cooksey, R., (2005). I Walk the Open Road: Toward an Open Source Philosophy. The European Graduate School
Division of Media and Communications. Master Thesis.
5. The Committee for Economic Development Digital Connections Council. (2009). Harnessing Openness to improve
research teaching and learning in Higher Education. p. 2. Found at:
http://www.ced.org/images/library/reports/digital_economy/dcc_opennessedu09.pdf
6. Cormier, Dave. (2009). Open educational Resources: the implications for educational development. Found at: http://tiny.cc/5u1q1 [accessed: 26 February 2010]
7. Gaskell, Anne(2010) 'Openness, access and e‐learning: how can they be aligned?', Open Learning: The Journal of
Open and Distance Learning, 25: 1, 1 — 4
8. OER Africa (2008). The Potential of Open Educational Resources. Concept Paper Prepared by OER Africa [Found
at: http://www.oerafrica.org] accessed 17‐09‐09.
9. Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development‐OECD. (2007) Giving Knowledge for Free: The
Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris: OECD‐ Educational Resources Centre for Educational Research
and Innovation. Found at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf. [Accessed: 14 June 2010]
10. Peters, M., (2008). ‘Openness’ and ‘Open Education’ in the Global Digital Economy: An Emerging Paradigm of
Social Production. Seminar given at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution on Friday 7th March 2008 as
part of an ESRC seminar series. Found at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/education/news/news0035.html [Accessed: 14
June 2010].
11. Swain, Harriet (2009). Any student any subject anywhere by Harriet Swain The Guardian, Tuesday 10
November 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/10/web‐technology‐degree‐future‐online
28
12. UNESCO (2009) Open educational resources: conversations in cyberspace. D’Antoni, S., & Savage, C., (Eds). Paris:
UNESCO.
13. Woods, Richard (2009). Self‐learners’ creating university of online The Sunday Times October 11, 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6869552.ece
B: Policy issues regarding Open Educational Resources (OER)
14. Bradwell, P., (2009). The edgeless university: why higher education must embrace technology. Found at:
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Edgeless_University_‐_web.pdf?1245715615 [accessed 26 April 2010]
15. Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2009). HIGHER AMBITIONS: The future of universities in a
knowledge economy. Found at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/h/09‐1447‐higher‐
ambitions.pdf [accessed 26 April 2010]
16. Hylén, J., (2006). Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges. OECD’s Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation. Paris, France [ found at:
http://www.oecd.org/searchResult/0,3400,en_2649_35845581_1_1_1_1_1,00.html] Accessed 17‐09‐09
17. Plenderleith, J., and Adamson, V., (2009).The policy landscape of transformation. In Transforming Higher Education through technology enhanced learning York: Higher Education Academy. pp. 6‐18
C: OERs and Copyright
18. Bissell, A., & Boyle, J. (2007). Towards a Global Learning Commons: ccLearn. Educational Technology, 4(6), 5‐9.
19. Bissell, A. N., (2009). Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open learning: The journal of open and distance learning. vol 24, No. 1. pp. 97 – 106.
20. Hodgkinson‐William, C. and Gray, E. (2009) Degrees of openness: The emergence of Open Educational resources
at the University of Cape Town. In International Journal of education and development using ICT vol. 5. No. 5.
2009.
21. JISC (2009). Creative Commons Licences: briefing paper. Found at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/bpcreativecommonsv1.pdf
22. Marshall, S. (2008). Worlds in Collision: Copyright, Technology and Education. Innovate, 4(5). [Found at:
www.innovateonline.info/index/php?view=article&id=528]. Accessed 17‐09‐09.
23. McGrail, J. P. and McGrail, E. (2009). What's Wrong with Copyright:Educator Strategies for Dealing with Analog Copyright Law in a Digital World. Found at: http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/What's_Wrong_with_Copyright‐__Educator_Strategies_for_Dealing_with_Analog_Copyright_Law_in_a_Digital_World.pdf
24. Naomi, K. IPR Toolkit: overview of this Toolkit and key issues. [Found at:
http://sca.jiscinvolve.org/files/2009/04/sca_2009symp_ipr_toolkit_overview‐final.pdf] accessed 17‐09‐2009.
25. Open Knowledge Foundation. Open Knowledge Definition. Found at: v1.0 (http://opendefinition.org/1.0/
26. Paley, Nina (2009). Intellectual Property” is Slavery. Found at: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/04/intellectual‐property‐is‐slavery/
27. Questioning copyright [Found at: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative
28. Rights and Rewards project: Academic attitudes to Openness. Found at:
http://rightsandrewards.lboro.ac.uk/index.php?section=1 [accessed 26 April 2010]
29. Sethi, Rajiv (2010). On Intellectual Property and Guard Labor. Found at: http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2010/02/on‐intellectual‐property‐and‐guard.html
D: Sustainability of OERs
30. Bates, Melanie, Loddington, Steve, Manuel, Sue and Oppenheim, Charles (2007)'Attitudes to the rights and
rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning',ALT‐J,15:1,67 — 82 31. The Commonwealth of Learning (2009). OERs: The promise and the pitfalls. In CONNECTIONS.Vol. 14. No. 3.
29
32. D'Antoni, S. (2007). Open Educational Resources. The Way Forward. Deliberations of an international community
of interest. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Educational Planning.
33. Downes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 3, 29‐44.
34. Harley, D., (2008). Why Understanding the Use and Users of Open Education Matters. In Opening of Education:
The collective advancement of education through Open technology, open content and open knowledge. Eds.
Iiyoshi, T., and Vijay Kumar, M.S.,. 2008. pp. 197‐211. Found at:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712forw1.pdf
35. Huijser, H., Bedford, T., and Bull, D., (2008) OpenCourseWare, Global Access and the Right to Education: Real
access or marketing ploy? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Volume 9, Number 1.
36. Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2007). Advancing Sustainability of Open Educational Resources. Issues in Informing
Science and Information Technology, 4.
37. McAndrew, P. et al (2009) OpenLearn: research report 2006‐2008. Found at:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/events/6/2009727_62936_o1.pdf [accessed: 14 June 2010]
38. McGill, L., et al (2008). Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials pp. 4 & 6. http://ie‐repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/1/goodintentionspublic.pdf
39. MIT (2006) MIT OpenCourseWare: 2005 Program Evaluation Findings Report. Found at:
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/global/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final.pdf (accessed 9 August 2010)
40. Straub, Richard. (2008). Is the world open? eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1 Nº 8 • April 2008 • ISSN 1887‐1542
41. Yaun,L., MacNie, S., and Kraan, W., (2008). Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education. Found at : http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp‐content/uploads/2008/09/oer_briefing_paper.pdf [ Accessed: 19 October 2009]
42. UNESCO (2009). The New Dynamics of Higher Education and Research For Societal Change and Development.
2009 World Conference on Higher Education: Paris: UNESCO.
43. Wiley, D. (2007). On the sustainability of Open Educational Resource Initiatives in Higher Education. Paris: OECD,
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Found at: www.oecd.org/edu/oer
44. Wilson, T. (2008). New ways of mediating learning: investigating the implications of adopting open educational
resources for tertiary education in an institution in the United Kingdom as compared to one in South Africa.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9 (1).
E: Design and evaluation of OERs
45. Agostinho, S., (2009) Learning designs representations to document, model and share teaching practice by In. Handbook of research on learning Design and Learning Objects. vol 1. New York: Information Science Reference.
46. Boyle, T. (2009). The design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical impact. In Learning Design and learning objects:
Issues, applications and technologies. Lockyer, L. et al. pp. New York – Information Science Reference. Pp. 391‐
407.
47. Carey, T., and Hanley, G., (2008). Extending the Impact of Open Educational Resources through alignment with
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and institutional strategy: lesson learned from the MERLOT Community
experience. In Iiyoshi, T, & Vijay Kumar, M.S., Opening of Education: The collective advancement of education through Open
technology, open content and open knowledge.
48. Currier, S., Campbell, L.M., (2002). Evaluating learning resources for Reusability: the “DNER & Learning Objects”
study ASCILITE 2002 conference proceedings.
49. Daniel, B. K., and Mohan, P., (2004). A Model for Evaluating Learning Objects. Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 2004.
50. Downes, S., (2005). E‐learning 2.0. National Research Council of Canada. October 17, 2005.
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29‐1§ion=articles
51. IMS Learning design Best Practice and Implementation Guide (Found at:
http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_bestv1p0.html#1501762
52. JISC (2009) Re‐purposing & re‐use of digital university‐level content & evaluation (RePRODUCE). Programme
Summary Report. Found at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningcapital/reproduce
53. Lane, A., (2006). From Pillar to Post: exploring the issues involved in repurposing distance learning materials for
use as Open Educational Resources. Found at: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=9724 [
Accessed: 22 October 2009]
30
54. Laurillard, D., (2008). Open teaching: the key to sustainable and effective Open Education. In Opening of
Education: The collective advancement of education through Open technology, open content and open
knowledge. Eds. Iiyoshi, T., and Vijay Kumar, M.S.,. 2008. pp. 319 – 335. Found at:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712forw1.pdf
55. Littlejohn, A. and Buckingham, S. (2003). Reusing Online Resources. Journal of Interactive Media in Education,
2003.
56. McAndrew, P., and Weller, M., (2005) Applying Learning Design to Supported Open Learning. In Learning Design:
A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, Koper, Rob; Tattersall, Colin (Eds.),
Springer‐Verlag 2005.
57. MIT (2008) Opening Up Education‐The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open
Content, and Open Knowledge. Iiyoshi, T., and Vijay Kumar M. S., (Eds) Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press
58. Oliver, R. (2007) Reusing and sharing learning designs in higher education, In Enhancing Higher Education, Theory
and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, Adelaide, 8‐11 July 2007: pp X429.
59. Sontag, M. 2009. A learning theory for 21st‐century students. Innovate 5 (4). [Found at :
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=524]
60. Susan Smith Nash (2005) Learning Objects, Learning Object Repositories, and Learning Theory: Preliminary Best
Practices for Online Courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects Volume 1, 2005.
61. Schoonenboom, J., Sligte, H., and Kliphuis, E,. (2009) Guidelines for supporting re‐use of existing digital learning
materials and methods in higher education ALT‐J, Research in Learning Technology Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2009, 131–
141.
62. TLRP’s evidence‐informed principles for effective pedagogies http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/UKHEfinal.pdf pp 14‐19 [accessed 26 Feb. 2010]
63. Tom Boyle (2006). et al An Agile method for developing learning objects Proceedings of the 23rd annual Ascilite
conference.
64. UNESCO (2009). OER Toolkit. Found at: http://oerwiki.iiep unesco.org/index.php?title=UNESCO_OER_Toolkit
Technology and OER
65. Duval, E. etal (2007) Open metadata for open educational resources in an open infrastructure Proceedings of the
OpenLearn2007 Conference. 30–31 October 2007
66. Freire, Juan (2008). Universities and web 2.0: institutional challenges. http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15530.pdf
67. Gilliland‐Swetland, A. J., (2000) Introduction to Metadata Pathways to Digital Information.
http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/standards/intrometadata
68. Hillmann, D., (2005) Using Dublin Core By. http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/11/07/usageguide/
69. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (2002) Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata IEEE
1484.12.1‐2002
70. The MASIE Center (2002) Making Sense of Learning Specifications & Standards: A Decision Maker's Guide to their
Adoption. March 8, 2002
71. Spronk, B., Editorial: Technology, Policy, and the Right to Education. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning Volume 9, Number 1.
