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
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)
