OER use/reuse landscape

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

1. areas definded as challenging

1.1. issues relating to quality assurance and trust

1.1.1. at the point of release

1.1.1.1. Windle et al 2010

1.1.2. at the point of reuse

1.1.2.1. Wiley & Gurrell 2009

1.1.3. big and little OER debate

1.1.4. models for OER QA

1.1.4.1. Philip et al 2008

1.1.5. through repositories or institutional websites

1.1.5.1. Greaves et al 2010

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

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

1.2. lack of skills to repurpose materials

1.2.1. Beggan 2009

1.2.2. Conole & Weller 2008

1.3. teaching culture

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

1.3.1.1. Beggan 2009

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

1.3.2.1. McGill et al. 2008

1.4. conflicting agendas: research vs. teaching excellence

1.4.1. Browne 2010

2. concepts/definitions/metaphors

2.1. OER as supply-driven concept

2.1.1. Wiley blogpost

2.2. reusibility

2.2.1. Windle et al. 2010

2.2.2. Wiley 2009

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

2.3. degree of openness

2.3.1. OER = 4R

2.3.1.1. Wiley blogpost

2.3.2. is use good enough?

2.3.2.1. Amber Thomas blogpost

2.4. OER metaphors and models

2.4.1. Robertson blogpost

3. signs of models of engagement

3.1. CoP

3.1.1. OpenLearn: LearningSpace and LabSpace model

3.1.1.1. McAndrew 2009

3.1.2. development and reuse teams

3.1.2.1. Windle et al. 2010

3.2. OER fully integrated into staff development programme

3.2.1. Browne 2010

3.3. awarness workshops

3.3.1. Browne 2010

3.3.2. Beggan, presentation at ALT-C 2010

3.4. toolkits on reuse

3.4.1. University of Nottingham, Interactive toolkit

4. perceived benefits & barriers/attitudes

4.1. to academics

4.1.1. Brown 2010

4.1.2. Beggan 2009

4.2. to learners

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

4.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

4.4. Wiley 2009

4.5. D'Antoni 2009

5. reuse case studies

5.1. Windle et al 2010

5.2. Greaves et al 2010

6. what's new? debate

6.1. Wiley, OER 101 Theory and Practice

6.2. Greaves et al 2010

6.3. OECD 2007

6.4. Windle et al. 2010

6.5. Wiley, The OER Meal Deal

6.6. Robertson blogpost

6.7. Levine, comment to Robertson blogpost

7. OER types and development models

7.1. little OER

7.1.1. teacher sharing what they're doing

7.1.1.1. Weller blogpost

7.1.1.2. Robertson blogpost

7.1.1.3. Amber Thomas post

7.2. big oer

7.2.1. MIT-like

7.2.1.1. shared as it is

7.2.1.1.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

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

7.2.2.1. Beggan 2009

7.2.3. 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

7.2.3.1. Lane 2008

7.2.3.2. McAndrew 2009

7.2.3.3. Gourley & Lane 2009

7.2.4. RLOs +

7.2.4.1. designed for reuse

7.2.4.1.1. example: GLOs reused by Greaves et al 2010

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

7.2.5.1. Windle et al 2010

7.2.6. designing OERs from scratch

7.2.6.1. Browne 2010

7.3. OECD 2007 after Margulies, 2005

7.3.1. Conole&Weller 2008

8. learning design as pedagogic undepinning for OERs

8.1. Browne 2010

8.2. Conole & Weller 2008

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

8.4. Conole blogpost

8.5. Kahle 2008

8.6. Gurell, Kuo, Walker 2010

9. what is common for sharing & reuse?

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

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

9.1.2. does not apply to research-led universities?

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

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

9.2.1. Browne 2010

9.2.2. Beggan 2009

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

9.3.1. Begann 2009,

9.3.2. Windle et al. 2010

9.3.3. Browne 2010

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

9.4.1. Beggan 2009

9.4.2. Gourley and Lane 2009, OpenLearn example

10. shift from OER to OEP

10.1. Conole et al. 2010

10.2. OPAL positioning paper, 2010

10.3. "open educator" "open learner"

10.3.1. Leslie wiki-entry

10.3.2. Leslie comment to Robertson blogpost

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

11.1. Browne 2010

11.2. Beggan 2009

11.3. Harley, 2008

11.4. McAndrew&Cropper 2010, OLnet project

11.5. hai

12. evidenced use&reuse/benefits

12.1. educators/teachers

12.1.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

12.2. learners

12.2.1. Gourley&Lane 2009

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

12.3. Windle et al. 2010

12.4. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

12.5. Johansen 2009

13. Implications for our study

13.1. specific mentality that goes with openness?

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

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

13.3. 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?

13.4. 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

13.5. Look for interviewees in the LabSpace?

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

14.1. for teachers

14.1.1. Greaves et al. 2010 (RLOs)

14.1.2. Windle et al. 2010 (RLOs +)

14.2. for learners

14.2.1. Lane 2008 (self-study modules)

14.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

15. usage scenarios

15.1. Conole blogpost

16. New node

17. New node