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. perceived benefits & barriers/attitudes
2.1. to academics
2.1.1. Brown 2010
2.1.2. Beggan 2009
2.2. to learners
2.2.1. Witthaus&Armellini, 2010, OTTER project final report
2.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010
3. usage scenarios
3.1. Conole blogpost
4. shift from OER to OEP
4.1. Conole et al. 2010
4.2. OPAL positioning paper, 2010
4.3. "open educator" "open learner"
4.3.1. Leslie wiki-entry
4.3.2. Leslie comment to Robertson blogpost
5. what attributes of OERs determine their usefulness (evidence-based)
5.1. for teachers
5.1.1. Greaves et al. 2010 (RLOs)
5.1.2. Windle et al. 2010 (RLOs +)
5.2. for learners
5.2.1. Lane 2008 (self-study modules)
5.3. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010
6. voices advocating for shift from supply-side to demand-side
6.1. Browne 2010
6.2. Beggan 2009
6.3. Harley, 2008
6.4. McAndrew&Cropper 2010, OLnet project
7. evidenced use&reuse/benefits
7.1. educators/teachers
7.1.1. Gourley&Lane 2009
7.2. learners
7.2.1. Gourley&Lane 2009
7.2.2. Wilson et al. 2010, Listening for Impact project
7.3. Windle et al. 2010
7.4. McGill, Beetham, Falconer, Littlejohn, 2010
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
9. reuse case studies
9.1. Windle et al 2010
9.2. Greaves et al 2010
10. signs of models of engagement
10.1. CoP
10.1.1. OpenLearn: LearningSpace and LabSpace model
10.1.1.1. McAndrew 2009
10.1.2. development and reuse teams
10.1.2.1. Windle et al. 2010
10.2. OER fully integrated into staff development programme
10.2.1. Browne 2010
10.3. awarness workshops
10.3.1. Browne 2010
10.3.2. Beggan, presentation at ALT-C 2010
10.4. toolkits on reuse
10.4.1. University of Nottingham, Interactive toolkit
11. areas definded as challenging
11.1. issues relating to quality assurance and trust
11.1.1. at the point of release
11.1.1.1. Windle et al 2010
11.1.2. at the point of reuse
11.1.2.1. Wiley & Gurrell 2009
11.1.3. big and little OER debate
11.1.4. models for OER QA
11.1.4.1. Philip et al 2008
11.1.5. through repositories or institutional websites
11.1.5.1. Greaves et al 2010
11.1.6. distributed (user communities) vs. central (faculties)
11.1.6.1. pros and cons of both models are discussed by Harley 2008
11.2. lack of skills to repurpose materials
11.2.1. Beggan 2009
11.2.2. Conole & Weller 2008
11.3. teaching culture
11.3.1. what is common practice in research (referrencing) has no established tradition in teaching & learning
11.3.1.1. Beggan 2009
11.3.2. lack of tradition of transparency in t&l reinforced by the introduction of VLEs
11.3.2.1. McGill et al. 2008
11.4. conflicting agendas: research vs. teaching excellence
11.4.1. Browne 2010
12. what's new? debate
12.1. Wiley, OER 101 Theory and Practice
12.2. Greaves et al 2010
12.3. Windle et al. 2010
12.4. OECD 2007
12.5. Wiley, The OER Meal Deal
12.6. Robertson blogpost
12.7. Levine, comment to Robertson blogpost
13. what is common for sharing & reuse?
13.1. who shares is more likely to reuse and vice versa
13.1.1. Windle et al., 2010 after Windle et al. 2007
13.1.2. does not apply to research-led universities?
13.1.2.1. Harley 2008 after Harley et al. 2007 (evidence from the University of California, US)
13.2. academics care about demand-side and want to be provided with evidence of use and value to end-user
13.2.1. Browne 2010
13.2.2. Beggan 2009
13.3. quality assurance and trust are both major issues to sharing and reuse, only the angle of looking at them is different
13.3.1. Begann 2009,
13.3.2. Windle et al. 2010
13.3.3. Browne 2010
13.4. Bringing reuse closer to sharing with help of Web2.0
13.4.1. Beggan 2009
13.4.2. Gourley and Lane 2009, OpenLearn example
14. Implications for our study
14.1. specific mentality that goes with openness?
14.2. what do we already know about the reuse of RLOs that can be relevant for RLOs +
14.2.1. Include in the interviews and workshops those who have experience in reusing RLOs
14.3. 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?
14.4. 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
14.5. Look for interviewees in the LabSpace?
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