Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Create your own awesome maps

Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account? Log In

OER use/reuse landscape by Mind Map: OER use/reuse landscape
5.0 stars - 3 reviews range from 0 to 5

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

lack of skills to repurpose materials

teaching culture

conflicting agendas: research vs. teaching excellence

concepts/definitions/metaphors

OER as supply-driven concept

reusibility

degree of openness

OER metaphors and models

signs of models of engagement

CoP

OER fully integrated into staff development programme

awarness workshops

toolkits on reuse

perceived benefits & barriers/attitudes

data collected form interviewes and focus groups with academics and learners

to academics

to learners

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

big oer

OECD 2007 after Margulies, 2005

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

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    

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

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

Bringing reuse closer to sharing with help of Web2.0

shift from OER to OEP

Conole et al. 2010

OPAL positioning paper, 2010

"open educator" "open learner"

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

learners

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 +

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

for learners

McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010

usage scenarios

Conole blogpost

New node

New node