OER use/reuse landscape

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
OER use/reuse landscape by Mind Map: OER use/reuse landscape

1. concepts/definitions/metaphors

1.1. OER as supply-driven concept

1.1.1. Wiley blogpost

1.2. reusibility

1.2.1. Windle et al. 2010

1.2.2. Wiley 2009

1.2.3. Boyle&Cook 2003, Learning Objects, Pedagogy and Reuse

1.3. degree of openness

1.3.1. OER = 4R

1.3.1.1. Wiley blogpost

1.3.2. is use good enough?

1.3.2.1. Amber Thomas blogpost

1.4. OER metaphors and models

1.4.1. Robertson blogpost

2. signs of models of engagement

2.1. CoP

2.1.1. OpenLearn: LearningSpace and LabSpace model

2.1.1.1. McAndrew 2009

2.1.2. development and reuse teams

2.1.2.1. Windle et al. 2010

2.2. OER fully integrated into staff development programme

2.2.1. Browne 2010

2.3. awarness workshops

2.3.1. Browne 2010

2.3.2. Beggan, presentation at ALT-C 2010

2.4. toolkits on reuse

2.4.1. University of Nottingham, Interactive toolkit

3. perceived benefits & barriers/attitudes

3.1. to academics

3.1.1. Brown 2010

3.1.2. Beggan 2009

3.2. to learners

3.2.1. Witthaus&Armellini, 2010, OTTER project final report

3.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

3.4. Wiley 2009

3.5. D'Antoni 2009

4. reuse case studies

4.1. Windle et al 2010

4.2. Greaves et al 2010

5. learning design as pedagogic undepinning for OERs

5.1. Browne 2010

5.2. Conole & Weller 2008

5.3. Boyle&Cook 2004, Learning Objects, Pedagogy and Reuse

5.4. Conole blogpost

5.5. Kahle 2008

5.6. Gurell, Kuo, Walker 2010

6. shift from OER to OEP

6.1. Conole et al. 2010

6.2. OPAL positioning paper, 2010

6.3. "open educator" "open learner"

6.3.1. Leslie wiki-entry

6.3.2. Leslie comment to Robertson blogpost

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

7.1. Browne 2010

7.2. Beggan 2009

7.3. Harley, 2008

7.4. McAndrew&Cropper 2010, OLnet project

7.5. hai

8. evidenced use&reuse/benefits

8.1. educators/teachers

8.1.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

8.2. learners

8.2.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

8.2.2. Wilson et al. 2010, Listening for Impact project

8.3. Windle et al. 2010

8.4. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

8.5. Johansen 2009

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

9.1. for teachers

9.1.1. Greaves et al. 2010 (RLOs)

9.1.2. Windle et al. 2010 (RLOs +)

9.2. for learners

9.2.1. Lane 2008 (self-study modules)

9.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

10. usage scenarios

10.1. Conole blogpost

11. New node

12. New node

13. areas definded as challenging

13.1. issues relating to quality assurance and trust

13.1.1. at the point of release

13.1.1.1. Windle et al 2010

13.1.2. at the point of reuse

13.1.2.1. Wiley & Gurrell 2009

13.1.3. big and little OER debate

13.1.4. models for OER QA

13.1.4.1. Philip et al 2008

13.1.5. through repositories or institutional websites

13.1.5.1. Greaves et al 2010

13.1.6. distributed (user communities) vs. central (faculties)

13.1.6.1. pros and cons of both models are discussed by Harley 2008

13.2. lack of skills to repurpose materials

13.2.1. Beggan 2009

13.2.2. Conole & Weller 2008

13.3. teaching culture

13.3.1. what is common practice in research (referencing) has no established tradition in teaching & learning

13.3.1.1. Beggan 2009

13.3.2. lack of tradition of transparency in t&l reinforced by the introduction of VLEs

13.3.2.1. McGill et al. 2008

13.4. conflicting agendas: research vs. teaching excellence

13.4.1. Browne 2010

14. what's new? debate

14.1. Wiley, OER 101 Theory and Practice

14.2. Greaves et al 2010

14.3. OECD 2007

14.4. Windle et al. 2010

14.5. Wiley, The OER Meal Deal

14.6. Robertson blogpost

14.7. Levine, comment to Robertson blogpost

15. OER types and development models

15.1. little OER

15.1.1. teacher sharing what they're doing

15.1.1.1. Weller blogpost

15.1.1.2. Robertson blogpost

15.1.1.3. Amber Thomas post

15.2. big oer

15.2.1. MIT-like

15.2.1.1. shared as it is

15.2.1.1.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

15.2.2. as it is + textual description of context of use

15.2.2.1. Beggan 2009

15.2.3. 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

15.2.3.1. Lane 2008

15.2.3.2. McAndrew 2009

15.2.3.3. Gourley & Lane 2009

15.2.4. RLOs +

15.2.4.1. designed for reuse

15.2.4.1.1. example: GLOs reused by Greaves et al 2010

15.2.5. design focuses on primary use but intention to support reuse is part of the approach

15.2.5.1. Windle et al 2010

15.2.6. designing OERs from scratch

15.2.6.1. Browne 2010

15.3. OECD 2007 after Margulies, 2005

15.3.1. Conole&Weller 2008

16. what is common for sharing & reuse?

16.1. who shares is more likely to reuse and vice versa

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

16.1.2. does not apply to research-led universities?

16.1.2.1. Harley 2008 after Harley et al. 2007 (evidence from the University of California, US)

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

16.2.1. Browne 2010

16.2.2. Beggan 2009

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

16.3.1. Begann 2009,

16.3.2. Windle et al. 2010

16.3.3. Browne 2010

16.4. Bringing reuse closer to sharing with help of Web2.0

16.4.1. Beggan 2009

16.4.2. Gourley and Lane 2009, OpenLearn example

17. Implications for our study

17.1. specific mentality that goes with openness?

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

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

17.3. 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?

17.4. 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

17.5. Look for interviewees in the LabSpace?