C-SAP OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES PROJECT

E-learning Forum 8th July 2010

Darren Marsh and Anna Gruszczynska, C-SAP

The background

HEFCE initiative, JISC / HEA key partners Original budget of £25 million for development of

open educational content - £5 million for pilot projects 2009 – 2010

3 strands to the pilot phase: Institutional Individual Subject

An OER II phase but reduction in scope

Open educational content is …

‘Teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an licence that permits their free use or re-purposing by others.’ Course materials Reading lists Student generated content Images / multimedia Learning objects Online activities Supporting materials from lectures and seminars Etc …

The rationale for OER

Encouraging sharing of content between institutions, academics, and communities of practice

Development and uptake of new tools to enhance productivity

Universal sharing of material (reduce duplication) Enhanced recognition and reward for teaching Making better use of the existing investment in digital

content Raising profiles – individual, institutional

Subject Strands

14 funded projects Working with approx 90 HEIs as project partners

across the subject centre projects Aims for each project:

Release 360 credits or equivalent of educational material, from within subject disciplines

Explore processes, challenges, assumptions about sharing and re-use

Encourage longer term release of open resources

Why Share?

“Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials”, Lou McGill et. al, December 2008 http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/

Critiques the ‘business case’ model which is often employed when discussing development of online / digital learning materials

“No one model fits all … it is fair to say that most HEIs have not articulated the various sharing activities taking place, particularly those coming from a bottom-up approach.”

Disciplinary perspectives towards digital content and resource sharing “Subject discipline is an important factor affecting

how academics share … in some subjects there are reported deficits in materials.”

“Are teachers likely to exchange/share practice rather than materials? If we encourage sharing of learning designs, would sharing of learning materials follow-on?”

“People won’t share things that are not easy or compelling for them to share.”

Good Intentions p.5-6

C-SAP Project: sector wide

Working with a number of subject professional bodies

Alignment of resources and practices for sharing around QAA Subject Benchmark statements

Wide dissemination across C-SAP networks, events, workshops

Develop a resource toolkit, offering a pedagogical framework

Articulate the benefits of open resources

C-SAP Project: Partners

6 academic partners: 2 from Sociology, 2 from Politics, 1 from Anthropology and 1 from Criminology

Each contribute approx 60 credits or ‘equivalent’ of material

Loosely based around Introductory topics Deposit into JORUM Open and other web 2.0

platforms for sharing

C-SAP OER Project: rationale

Most practice in HE production of teaching materials is at individual level

The ways in which they are now used in and out of the classroom are often unrecorded (relying on tacit understanding)

To re-use material effectively, such tacit understandings might be made open / revealed

There are however differing meanings and degrees of ‘openness’

Teaching materials are …

Localised Context-bound Located on institutional VLEs Linked to assessment practices Linked to learning outcomes Encode ‘tacit’ understandings Implied pedagogies / approaches Varied in nature of ‘artefact’ (digital format)

Project process – exploring ‘tacitness’

• Copyright and IPR• ‘Ownership’ status• Module provenance and history• ‘Normal’ review prior to open release• Relation of original programmes

• Copyright and IPR• ‘Ownership’ status• Module provenance and history• ‘Normal’ review prior to open release• Relation of original programmes

• Community of practice• Collaborative wiki workspace• Peer supported review exercises• ‘Mapping’ of module outline and contents to facilitate re-use• Copyright audits of materials

• Community of practice• Collaborative wiki workspace• Peer supported review exercises• ‘Mapping’ of module outline and contents to facilitate re-use• Copyright audits of materials

• Project toolkit - ‘mapping’ materials, ‘diagnostic’ editing• Source ‘content’ deposited in JORUM and other platforms• Module mappings in project website

• Project toolkit - ‘mapping’ materials, ‘diagnostic’ editing• Source ‘content’ deposited in JORUM and other platforms• Module mappings in project website

Series of development activities

Encouraging reflection Peer discussion

Local / global Open / closed

Mapping the modules Providing the context Consider re-use An iterative process Re-working materials Creative commons

Shared working space (pbworks wiki)

• document repository• discussion• review• transformation

Case studies

Partners’ reflections on the process: before, during, after

Focused around one module - but reflect across the scope of the project

Video overview and module ‘map’ link

Extra supporting materials

Materials submitted: 6 partners, 4 subjects, 360 credits

Partner name/ institution Modules released Credit weighting

No. of discrete items (usually includes module handbook, lecture slides, assessment material etc.)

Pam Lowe, Aston University [Sociology]

Comparative sociology 10 10Embodiment 10 10Gender and society 10 11Race and ethnicity 10 10Sociology of health and illness

10 9

Sociology of reproduction 10 11Angels Trias i Valls, Regent’s College (materials were produced during a previous role at Lampeter University) [Anthropology]

Anthropological ideas 20 1Exploring religions and cultures

20 27

Visual anthropology 20 25

Cathy Gormley-Heenan, University of Ulster [Politics]

Government of UK and Ireland

20 13

Public policy 20 12State crime 20 12

Jon Parker, Keele University [Politics]

Mass media in America 15 17Why politics matters 15 11Politics of sustainability 15 24British politics since 1945 15 13

Dave Harris, MARJON (Plymouth) [Sociology]

Sociology of leisure 3010

Introduction to research methods

30 11

Helen Jones, Manchester Metropolitan University [Criminology]

International e-communication exchange

15 9

Learning and employability 15 7Gender, crime and justice 15 15Crime and violence 15 12

Some propositions for pedagogical frameworks

“What is a pedagogical framework? The point is not to construct one ideal pedagogical framework; but neither are all possible frameworks equally satisfactory.”Goodyear, P & Jones, C (2004) Pedagogical frameworks for DNER (Distributed National Electronic Resource)

Some propositions about a ‘framework’ for OER

a. courses are designed as 'sets' of modules (i.e. they have been modularised)

b. modules (in line with HE convention and practice) are aligned with learning outcomes, and a form of assessment

c. the contextualisation of modules involves intent that is often implicit / tacit / invisible - and constructing them to be shared requires this intent to be re-examined by a) the originator b) future user(s)

d. stripping away contextual info in modules in order that they might be re-used is problematic in that insufficient structure may remain for others to use

C-SAP OER Project Toolkit

OER creation tools Module ‘Mapping’ Diagnose / Review

OER discovery tool ‘Generative’ search

(keywords, subject, assessment)

C-SAP OER Project Toolkit - Mapping

Mapping for OER Overview Pedagogy Subject benchmarks Outcomes and

assessment Content Comments

C-SAP OER Project Toolkit - Generate

Filter / search ‘Metatags’ field Assessment types Subject areas

Proof of concept Potential for OER

discovery based on multiple ‘needs’

How does a module ‘look’ in toolkit?

Overview Screen:•author

•institution•programme

•credit•description•meta-tags

(xml source – all potential metadata)

The toolkit preview modeFully html:• uses xml

source• presents a

‘standardised’ view of the

module (easy to embed in other

websites)• shows all mapping sections

• content items link directly into

JOURM repository

Preview mode – LO’s and assessment

Making ‘tacit’ more visible:• presents the outcomes and assessment choices in

mapping tool• shows how the

user defined LO’s relate to assessment

tasks• exposing

pedagogical design for re-use

How does it look in JORUM?http://open.jorum.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/2785

Search by:•‘collections’ (not subjects)

•author• keywords

Granularity – most material

in JOURM single item

No extra space to expose tacit

What next after the pilot?

Expand use of beta toolkit Collect further module mappings for OER Explore situated re-purposing of pilot OER modules in

other contexts More engagement and feedback from students Potential for OER addressing specific curriculum issues

(i.e. research methods, first year provision) Better understanding of users and needs:

groups (early career, professional development, how using) types of OER (what most needed, most effective, granularity)

OER activity – your turn!

Think of an exemplar module that you teach or have taught. How would you begin to ‘describe’ and re-work that module as an ‘OER’ for: an immediate colleague a colleague from another school at your institution a peer from your subject discipline in the UK a peer from your subject discipline globally

Consider what might be required for: ‘technical’ re-working; copyright + ownership; moral / ethical

issues; ‘openness’ and granularity (how much); getting feedback and review (formal/informal); quality; assistance.