OER use/reuse landscape by Mind Map: OER use/reuse landscape
5.0 stars - 1 reviews

OER use/reuse landscape

areas definded as challenging

highly debated subjects that relate directly to reuse (but also to sharing)

issues relating to quality assurance and trust

at the point of release, Windle et al 2010

at the point of reuse, Wiley & Gurrell 2009

big and little OER debate

models for OER QA, Philip et al 2008

through repositories or institutional websites, Greaves et al 2010

distributed (user communities) vs. central (faculties), pros and cons of both models are discussed by Harley 2008

lack of skills to repurpose materials

Beggan 2009

Conole & Weller 2008

teaching culture

what is common practice in research (referencing) has no established tradition in teaching & learning, Beggan 2009

lack of tradition of transparency in t&l reinforced by the introduction of VLEs, McGill et al. 2008

conflicting agendas: research vs. teaching excellence

Browne 2010

concepts/definitions/metaphors

OER as supply-driven concept

Wiley blogpost

reusibility

Windle et al. 2010

Wiley 2009

Boyle&Cook 2003, Learning Objects, Pedagogy and Reuse

degree of openness

OER = 4R, Wiley blogpost

is use good enough?, Amber Thomas blogpost

OER metaphors and models

Robertson blogpost

signs of models of engagement

CoP

OpenLearn: LearningSpace and LabSpace model, McAndrew 2009

development and reuse teams, Windle et al. 2010

OER fully integrated into staff development programme

Browne 2010

awarness workshops

Browne 2010

Beggan, presentation at ALT-C 2010

toolkits on reuse

University of Nottingham, Interactive toolkit

perceived benefits & barriers/attitudes

data collected form interviewes and focus groups with academics and learners

to academics

Brown 2010

Beggan 2009

to learners

Witthaus&Armellini, 2010, OTTER project final report

McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

Wiley 2009

D'Antoni 2009

DʼAntoni, S. (2009). Open Educational Resources: reviewing initiatives and issues - Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24, 1, 3-10. doi:10.1080/02680510802625443

reuse case studies

Windle et al 2010

Greaves et al 2010

what's new? debate

discussions revolving around the added value over other materials availale on the web

Wiley, OER 101 Theory and Practice

Added value OER lies in its reuse: "if you can't make revisions to your matertrials were necessary, you are limited in your ability to get better at what you do over time"

Greaves et al 2010

benefit of CC over Free and Linkable evidenced in a case study: Academic Phrasebank (free webbased resource form the university of Menchester) was used as supplementary material for students. Based on the feedback from students auhors decided to get permission to redesign this resources to better suit students' needs

OECD 2007

RLOs with CC are only one part of OERs

Windle et al. 2010

Windle lists CC licencing among the main drivers for the world-wide reuse of SONET OER materials (feedback from users collected via surveys)

Wiley, The OER Meal Deal

Robertson blogpost

Robertson provides an explaination on how RLOs differ from OER from the technical perspective: RLOs as intentionaly designed for sharing, context neutral, rich metadata, packaged, stored in repositories, media rich. First made by specialists, than with tools like GLO maker - lowered technical barriers. = creating sth with intention to share OERs - any edu resource, of any format that some though of as being valuabel to share. = sharing sth that sb is doing with an open licence. OERs can but not necessarly have to be context neutral, rich in metadata, media rich, packaged etc. So and RLO can be OER but not all OERs are RLO (form the tech perspective) "People sharing what they’re doing vs. people creating particular stuff to share" Robertson also refers to big and small OERs. The difference  relevant to REMIXING - small OERs are created by individuals (like teachers), low cost production, web native = easier to reuse and remix BUT reputation, quality and location issues    

Levine, comment to Robertson blogpost

Levine approaches the problem from a different perspective concentrating rather on the similarities than differences: intention to share the content that was created for learning. He also argues that the differences between RLOs and OERs have to be seen in the context of times: RLOs arose in times of Web1.0 and with tools limitations (such that would enable anyone to mess around and remix) "The difference is now I guess that it is left to us, the finders of OERs to assemble or link."

OER types and development models

different types = different benefits to different audiences/for different purposes/in different contexts

little OER

teacher sharing what they're doing, Weller blogpost, Robertson blogpost, Amber Thomas post

big oer

MIT-like, shared as it is, Gourley&Lane 2009

as it is + textual description of context of use, Beggan 2009

OpenLearn model: OERs developed using existing pedagogical model for designing self-study materials for online learning but with adaptations that make them act more as Learning Objects, Lane 2008, McAndrew 2009, Gourley & Lane 2009

RLOs +, designed for reuse, example: GLOs reused by Greaves et al 2010

design focuses on primary use but intention to support reuse is part of the approach, Windle et al 2010

designing OERs from scratch, Browne 2010

OECD 2007 after Margulies, 2005

OECD report (after Margulies, 2005): OER can be tools, content, implementation resources

Conole&Weller 2008

learning design as pedagogic undepinning for OERs

Browne 2010

Conole & Weller 2008

Boyle&Cook 2004, Learning Objects, Pedagogy and Reuse

Boyle, T., & Cook, J. (2003). Learning Objects, Pedagogy and Reuse. Learning Technology in Transition. In J. K. Seale (Ed.), Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation (pp. 31–44). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Conole blogpost

Kahle 2008

Gurell, Kuo, Walker 2010

Gurell, S., Kuo, Y.-C., & Walker, A. (2010). The pedagogical enhancement of open education: An examination of problem-based learning | Gurell | The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/886/1633

what is common for sharing & reuse?

who shares is more likely to reuse and vice versa

Robertson provides an explaination on how RLOs differ from OER from the technical perspective: RLOs as intentionaly designed for sharing, context neutral, rich metadata, packaged, stored in repositories, media rich. First made by specialists, than with tools like GLO maker - lowered technical barriers. = creating sth with intention to share OERs - any edu resource, of any format that some though of as being valuabel to share. = sharing sth that sb is doing with an open licence. OERs can but not necessarly have to be context neutral, rich in metadata, media rich, packaged etc. So and RLO can be OER but not all OERs are RLO (form the tech perspective) "People sharing what they’re doing vs. people creating particular stuff to share" Robertson also refers to big and small OERs. The difference  relevant to REMIXING - small OERs are created by individuals (like teachers), low cost production, web native = easier to reuse and remix BUT reputation, quality and location issues    

Windle et al., 2010 after Windle et al. 2007

does not apply to research-led universities?, Harley 2008 after Harley et al. 2007 (evidence from the University of California, US)

academics care about demand-side and want to be provided with evidence of use and value to end-user

Browne 2010

Beggan 2009

quality assurance and trust are both major issues to sharing and reuse, only the angle of looking at them is different

Begann 2009,

Windle et al. 2010

Browne 2010

Bringing reuse closer to sharing with help of Web2.0

Beggan 2009

Gourley and Lane 2009, OpenLearn example

shift from OER to OEP

Conole et al. 2010

OPAL positioning paper, 2010

"open educator" "open learner"

Leslie wiki-entry

Leslie comment to Robertson blogpost

voices advocating for shift from supply-side to demand-side

A considerable amount of authors highlight that understanding the user and reuse is important. Efforts are being made to develop tools and approaches that will help to understand "why" and "what for" the materials are being downloaded

Browne 2010

Beggan 2009

Harley, 2008

McAndrew&Cropper 2010, OLnet project

hai

evidenced use&reuse/benefits

educators/teachers

Gourley&Lane 2009

learners

Gourley&Lane 2009

Wilson et al. 2010, Listening for Impact project

Windle et al. 2010

McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

Johansen 2009

Wiley, D. (2006). On the sustainability of open educational resource initiatives in higher education. Paris, 9pp, retrieved August, 26, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/9/38645447.pdf.

Implications for our study

specific mentality that goes with openness?

Many barriers that are relevant to sharing seem to be also relevant to reuse even if the angle of looking at the barrier is slightly different. Therefore we should keep an eye on what literature and stakholders have to say on sharing.

what do we already know about the reuse of RLOs that can be relevant for RLOs +

Include in the interviews and workshops those who have experience in reusing RLOs

Types of OERs are much more diverse than LO/RLO debate so we can't claim that the issue was already covered in the literature (question was dropped). It is also not possible to look at reuse of all those different types of materials being released. Taking OEP perspective instead?

OPAL matrix could be a nice tool to help us to explore our research question about the relathionship between teachers' values about t&l and their disposition towards OERs

Look for interviewees in the LabSpace?

what attributes of OERs determine their usefulness (evidence-based)

this question was dropped and therefore not in scope of our literature search.

for teachers

Greaves et al. 2010 (RLOs)

Windle et al. 2010 (RLOs +)

for learners

Lane 2008 (self-study modules)

McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

usage scenarios

Conole blogpost

New node

New node

Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Sign In