The Higher Education Academy (HEA)/JISC Final Report · PDF fileThe Higher Education Academy...

Project Identifier: Version: 2 Contact: [email protected] Date: 22 August 2011

of 27 Document title: HEA/JISC Final Report Template Last updated: May 2011 - v1

The Higher Education Academy (HEA)/JISC Final Report

Project Information

Project Identifier To be completed by HEA/JISC

Project Title OSTRICH (OER Sustainability through Teaching & Research Innovation: Cascading across HEIs)

Project Hashtag #ostrichproject

Start Date 1 September 2010 End Date 31 August 2011

Lead Institution University of Leicester

Project Director Dr Alejandro Armellini (Senior Learning Designer, Beyond Distance Research Alliance)

Project Manager Gabi Witthaus (Knowledge Transfer Fellow, Beyond Distance Research Alliance)

Contact email [email protected]

Partner Institutions University of Bath and University of Derby

Project Web URL www.le.ac.uk/ostrich

Programme Name Open educational resources programme - phase 2 (Cascade strand)

Programme Manager Maggie Stephens (Heather Price)

Document Information

Author(s) 1) Gabi Witthaus 2) Alejandro Armellini 3) Phill Gagen

4) Vic Jenkins

Project Role(s) 1) Knowledge Transfer Fellow

2) Project Director

3) Project Lead for Derby

4) Project Lead for Bath

Date 22/08/2011 Filename OSTRICH Final Report v2 Submitted

URL http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs

Access This report is for general dissemination

Document History

Version Date Comments

1 27 June 2011 Version 1 of the DRAFT Final Report, submitted to JISC for feedback.

2 22 Aug 2011 Version 2, incorporating feedback from JISC and Steering Group, and including updated information about the final stages of the project.

http://www.le.ac.uk/ostrich

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs


Document title: HEA/JISC Final Report Template Last updated: May 2011 – v1

of 27

Table of Contents

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES PROGRAMME - PHASE 2 (CASCADE STRAND) ..................................................................... 1

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 3

2 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 3

3 MAIN BODY OF REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 PROJECT OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT ACHIEVING YOUR OUTPUTS / OUTCOMES? ...................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Staff ................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.2 Stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising ........................................................................... 6 3.2.3 Repository planning ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.4 OER production, validation and release .......................................................................................... 7 3.2.5 Ongoing support and guidance from the lead partner ................................................................... 8 3.2.6 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.7 Refinement of CORRE framework and emergence of CORRE 2.0 ................................................... 8 3.2.8 Dissemination ................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 WHAT DID YOU LEARN? ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.3.1 Repository lessons ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.2 Lecture capture lessons ................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.3 Copyright and intellectual property (IP) policy lessons ................................................................. 10 3.3.4 OER production workflow lessons ................................................................................................. 10

3.4 IMMEDIATE IMPACT ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.1 What difference has your project made in your institution? ........................................................ 11 3.4.2 How has the wider community benefitted from your project? ..................................................... 12 3.4.3 How has your project changed the attitudes and practices of your stakeholders? ...................... 12

3.5 FUTURE IMPACT ........................................................................................................................................ 13

4 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 13

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 14

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HE SECTOR ...................................................................................................... 14 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HEA/JISC ....................................................................................................... 14

6 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ............................................................................................................ 15

6.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT COULD BE UNDERTAKEN ................................................................................. 15 6.2 SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................ 15

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX A: CORRE 2.0 ................................................................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX B: SCAFFOLD FOR INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OERS .......................... 19

APPENDIX C: OERS RELEASED AT BATH AND DERBY ...................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX D: DISSEMINATION ....................................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS-RAISING AND ENGAGEMENT AT BATH ......................................... 24

APPENDIX F: STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS-RAISING AND ENGAGEMENT AT DERBY ........................................ 25

APPENDIX G: EXTERNAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 26



of 27

1 Acknowledgements The OSTRICH project is part of the JISC and HEA-funded Open Educational Resources Programme - Phase 2 (Cascade strand). The Beyond Distance Research Alliance at the University of Leicester is the lead partner; cascade partners are the Universities of Derby and Bath. This report was jointly authored by project team members from all three institutions. Steering Group member Prof. David Hawkridge gave feedback on drafts.

2 Project Summary The OSTRICH project has enabled the Universities of Bath and Derby to implement sustainable open educational resource (OER) development processes with reference to the lessons learned from its precursor, the OTTER project at the University of Leicester (www.le.ac.uk/otter), and adapting them in appropriate ways to their own institutional approaches and cultures. Through the project, all three universities are now engaging in the ongoing dialogue about openness in education that is taking place at national and international levels. The institutions are also in a position to benefit from their enhanced web presence and the higher profile generated by the publication of quality-assured educational resources under open licences. Highlights for the Universities of Bath and Derby include the release of a total of 210 credits’ worth of OERs, with an additional 85 in progress, the publication of several guidance documents for producers of OERs, and far greater awareness of open practices at both these institutions. The HE sector will also benefit from the project through the publication of source code for a repository on the Drupal platform, the development of a new, refined version of the CORRE workflow and evaluation framework (originally created as an output of the OTTER project), and the creation of a “scaffold” for institutional adoption and implementation of OERs.

3 Main Body of Report

3.1 Project Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs/outcomes promised in project plan

Brief description of outputs/ outcomes achieved and URLs (where applicable)

1. Release of OERs (at least 200 credits in total)

Substantial over-delivery, with 210 credits released, and another 85 planned for release before the end of the year. (See Appendix C.)

2. Repository1 plus additional

output: open source repository code available

OER repository created and available on the Drupal open-source platform (http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk).

OSTRICH further exceeded its commitments in that a copy of the repository database is now openly available at http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep for use by other institutions.

3. An OSTRICH cascade framework, including training materials and templates, that will enable other institutions to benefit from the knowledge transfer process implemented in OSTRICH

A “Scaffold for Institutional Adoption and Implementation of OERs“ (Appendix B – also available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs) developed to enable OER teams in other institutions to follow the same processes that were used at Bath and Derby, from stakeholder awareness-raising through to OER creation and release. This framework was drawn directly from the stages that the OSTRICH project team went through.

1 There has been some debate as to whether to call the repository a ‘referatory’, since it does not

actually contain the OERs themselves but links out to other locations where the OERs are held. We have retained the term ‘repository’, however, as it is more familiar to most stakeholders.

http://www.le.ac.uk/otter

http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/

http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep




of 27

4. Versions of the CORRE framework adapted to partners’ institutional contexts, for both the creation of new content and the conversion of existing material into OERs

The CORRE (Content, Openness, Reuse and Repurposing, Evidence) workflow framework from the OTTER project (www.tinyurl.com/otter-corre) was validated by Derby and Bath for converting existing teaching materials into OERs, and was modified to incorporate processes for creating OERs from scratch. The new framework is called CORRE 2.0. The transition from CORRE 1.0 to CORRE 2.0 was presented at OER11 (http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-oer11). The CORRE 2.0 framework (Appendix A) is available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2. In its implementation at Bath, it is referred to as DORRE: Designing for Openness, Reuse Repurposing and Evidence. (See work in progress at http://go.bath.ac.uk/dorre.)

5. Draft OER policies and guidelines

Bath’s intellectual property policy guidance document now includes reference to OERs, as a direct result of OSTRICH, which also led to the creation of several legal documents: for example, Bath’s “Deed of Licence” which academic staff are required to sign to permit the university to release specified materials as OERs, and consent documents based on JISC and Web2rights templates. All these documents are at: (http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/resources/). OSTRICH also generated a noticeable institutional change at Bath with respect to the creation of lecture capture materials and the potential future release of such materials as OERs. While the initial desire to release these materials as OERs during the lifespan of OSTRICH was not realised (see section 3.3.2), documentation and resources relating to the use of lecture capture technology have been created and made available in OER format (http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc). More robust processes will be put in place to enable the release of lecture capture materials as OERs in the future. An internal briefing paper on the legal issues surrounding lecture capture at Bath has also been provided for Senior Management. The Derby OSTRICH team has developed a draft YouTube policy. (See http://tinyurl.com/youtube-at-derby.) A Working Group involving a PVC, Deans of Schools and Teaching Fellows will be set up to establish the way forward on OERs for the institution. Bath and Derby have created a joint takedown policy for OERs, which has been developed from the existing Bath research publications repository takedown policy, and amended to take into account good practice from the OTTER and JorumOpen repositories. (See http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/50708.)

6. A minimum of three dissemination events

Members of the OSTRICH team have presented at more than ten external events, including: - Open Nottingham Seminar (April 2011) - University of Leicester’s international online Learning Futures Festival (April 2011) - OER 11 conference, Manchester (May 2011) - ALT-C, Leeds (forthcoming: September 2011) See Appendix D for the full list. A very wide range of internal dissemination events has also been held. (See Appendices E and F.) Awareness-raising has also been ongoing at all partner institutions via other meetings (e.g. meetings with Directors of

http://www.tinyurl.com/otter-corre

http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-oer11


http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2

http://go.bath.ac.uk/dorre

http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/resources/

http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc

http://tinyurl.com/youtube-at-derby

http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/50708



of 27

Studies at Bath and Derby), training sessions including the Carpe Diem workshops run by the Beyond Distance team for the University of Leicester and external institutions (www.le.ac.uk/carpediem) and informal “corridor” discussions with colleagues across faculties.

7. Evidence of increased awareness of OERs and associated challenges by different stakeholder groups at each partner institution.

OSTRICH has exceeded expectations on this output, with substantial gains in OER awareness at both the cascade partner institutions. (See section 3.4.1.) At Bath, the opinions of stakeholders regarding the benefits and challenges of OER were sought during discussions forming part of a variety of awareness-raising and internal evaluation activities during the project. (See http://go.bath.ac.uk/pxdg.) At Derby, stakeholders were also asked their opinions on OERs and issues related to OERs. (See http://tinyurl.com/derby-internal-eval.)

8. Reports to funders, at least one of which will be made public.

The OSTRICH Project Plan, the Progress Report (submitted to JISC in February 2011) and the Final Report are all available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs.

9. Evaluation report An external evaluation report is being produced by Peter Chatterton, following the framework outlined in Appendix G. It will be available in early September at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs.

10. OSTRICH project website, which will be maintained for at least three years following the project, and project blog

OSTRICH Project website: www.le.ac.uk/ostrich OSTRICH blog at Leicester: www.projectostrich.wordpress.com OSTRICH blog at Bath: http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer OSTRICH blog at Derby: http://ostrichatderby.wordpress.com/

11. Support resources, e.g. workshop handouts, FAQs

The following support resources can be found in the OSTRICH repository and blogs:

OER Resource page – a section of the University of Bath OER/OSTRICH blog that collates the resources built during the life of the project into one location http://go.bath.ac.uk/fvlt

OER FAQs for Bath (ongoing): http://go.bath.ac.uk/mvhi

Panopto Lecture Capture guide and handout on pedagogy for lecture capture: http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc

A handout on finding open content: http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/52096

A handout on attributing third party content http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/52095

Further materials for academics on openness, from a workshop held at Bath: http://go.bath.ac.uk/ldz1

Draft YouTube policy from Derby at http://tinyurl.com/youtube-at-derby

3.2 How did you go about achieving your outputs / outcomes?

The primary aim of the OSTRICH project was to transfer and cascade, in usable formats, the key outcomes of Leicester’s institutional OER pilot project, OTTER (www.le.ac.uk/otter), to the universities of Bath and Derby. OSTRICH aimed to enable both cascade partners to contextualise key OER

http://www.le.ac.uk/carpediem

http://go.bath.ac.uk/pxdg

http://tinyurl.com/derby-internal-eval





http://www.projectostrich.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer

http://ostrichatderby.wordpress.com/

http://go.bath.ac.uk/fvlt

http://go.bath.ac.uk/mvhi




http://go.bath.ac.uk/ldz1





of 27

lessons learnt and to test and transfer OER models, leading to a sustainable approach to OER development and release.

3.2.1 Staff Challenges were encountered in the project by the loss of three key staff members:

Andy Ramsden, project lead at Bath, who left the institution in October 2010 and was replaced by Kyriaki Anagnostopolou in January 2011, with Vic Jenkins also taking on additional roles and responsibilities in the project

Rene Meijer, project lead at Derby, who left the institution in November 2010 and was replaced by Phill Gagen

Most significantly and sadly, the copyright officer at Derby, Linda Swanson, passed away in May 2010. (http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/in-memory-of-linda-swanson/) She had played a central role in the development of the OERs and the awareness-raising activities at Derby, and had also assisted the project team at Bath with her extensive knowledge and expertise. The loss of Linda took a heavy emotional toll on the project team; however, her replacement by Donya Rowan enabled the OER release work to continue with only minor delays.

There was an additional staff change at Derby, where Sam O’Neill took over from Pete Radcliffe as Learning Technologist. With only three of the original team (Alejandro Armellini and Gabi Witthaus at Leicester, and Vic Jenkins at Bath) were left on the project, ensuring continuity and meeting all agreed commitments was a major focus for all team members throughout the project.

3.2.2 Stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising Through the OSTRICH project, there was extensive awareness-raising at both Bath and Derby. (See Appendices E and F.) A small number of academics who had originally agreed to take part in the project later decided against being involved. At Bath, some felt that the lecture capture service (Panopto) that went live across the institution this academic year, was not yet sufficiently developed to provide captured lectures that could be released as OERs (see section 3.3.2) At Derby one academic in Education withdrew from the project because she felt that her teaching materials were inappropriate as OERs as they were not content-centric but rather based on directed study. Despite these losses, the project thrived and stakeholder engagement activities attracted several academics who had not been involved at the bidding stage, with additional OERs being created in new subjects. At Bath, an academic who was producing Chemistry materials and was planning to release them himself as OERs heard about OSTRICH via the awareness-raising events, and asked the project team if he could work through them. Engineering materials were added when the project team approached the academics who were involved in course redesign, and they agreed to join the project. At Derby, new OERs were created in Psychology, Law, Environmental Management, Business, Quarrying, Mathematics, Construction and Careers. These new subjects were included after an awareness-raising and recruitment drive halfway through the project, when it became apparent that the course teams who had already committed materials might not be able to deliver the promised 100 credits’ worth of OERs. At this point, the project lead attended faculty meetings and subject meetings, knocked on doors, spoke to staff with whom his e-learning support team had a relationship, and requested content that could be used and released as OERs. Most of the newly-approached academics agreed to contribute, while at the same time, almost all the academics who had originally made commitments began to deliver the promised content. The project team was pleasantly surprised at their responses, although there was some concern about the extra workload for the team. The result was that Derby released almost double the promised number of credits in print format, and due to time constraints had to forego the earlier intention of producing multi-media elements.

http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/in-memory-of-linda-swanson/



of 27

See http://go.bath.ac.uk/pxdg for details about internal evaluation processes and findings in relation to stakeholder engagement at Bath, and http://tinyurl.com/derby-internal-eval for the data from Derby’s internal evaluation with stakeholders.

3.2.3 Repository planning

The main stages in the story of the repository were as follows:

The Bath repository team found that the original plan to repurpose the existing University of Bath FAQ engine into an OER repository was unlikely to be appropriate for project requirements, as it would have meant branching from the code that the engine was based on and would not have been easily updated. The team therefore consulted with software developers, Web Services and the Library Research Publications Manager at Bath, as well as members of JISC CETIS, to investigate other possible repository solutions. Wordpress, myPHP FAQ engine, ePrints and Drupal were all considered. After discussion within the wider OSTRICH team, Bath selected Drupal as it seemed to be most fit for purpose and was also a familiar platform to people in both institutions, which would help to ensure sustainability. The fact that Drupal is open source was also seen as a major benefit for the wider community.

The repository structure was then designed with additional technical support from within Bath, and planning was undertaken for metadata collection. The first mock-up of the repository was made available to project partners to test for usability and provide feedback. The repository was found to be very well suited to purpose, with only some minor usability issues flagged up, such as that the categories used are based on Jorum Open’s comprehensive list of categories, and, because many of these categories were not used in OSTRICH there were many links on the “Browse for OERs” page that, when clicked on, led to empty pages. This issue was solved by the Bath team by identifying the number of OERs available next to each heading. The blog posts summarising background discussions and planning of the repository are at http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/category/repository.

The repository code has been released into the open source community at http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/node/64. Derby is planning to create its own repository based on this code.

3.2.4 OER production, validation and release

The gathering and production of OERs went mainly according to plan at both institutions, with the following unexpected issues arising:

At Derby, the original intention had been to produce a relatively small number of media-rich OERs (e.g. PowerPoint presentations with voice-overs produced in Adobe Presenter). This plan was modified, after discussion with project partners, to include more text-based materials in order to provide additional context for the multimedia materials, thereby making the OERs accessible to self-learners, and also to ensure that the target of 100 credits would be met by the end of the project. As noted in section 3.2.2, the result was that the Derby project team generated almost double the number of OERs originally promised; hence their efforts had to be redirected towards managing the flow of print materials through the stages of OER production and release, rather than carrying out the original intention of creating media-rich OERs.

Validation of the first batch of OERs at Derby was held up by a few weeks in the aftermath of Linda Swansons’ passing away. The partner institutions agreed to release the first batch of materials that had been through an earlier check by Linda, where she had flagged issues for authors and those issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the project team. Linda’s role was later taken up by Donya Rowan from the University of Derby’s library, and this enabled the smooth processing of the remaining OERs in the last few months of the project.

At Bath, the original plan to release 20 credits’ worth of materials from a range of subject areas as lecture capture using Panopto was put aside when it became clear that the service was not yet sufficiently developed to provide captured lectures that could be released as OER (see section 3.3.2). However, other OERs were submitted from Engineering and Chemistry to compensate for the loss of the lecture capture OERs. (See 3.2.2.)



http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/node/64



of 27

Current status of OER release (See Appendix C): o Derby: 142 credits released, with a further 70 planned for release in early September

when project team members return from annual leave. o Bath: 70 credits have been released. A further 15 credits are yet to be released:

seven credits from Staff & Student Development (release is postponed until at least the end of September due to long-term illness of one author), and eight credits from Lifelong Learning (now to be released by the end of October due to changing writing schedules for newly created materials). In addition to these OERs, the Drupal source code has been released (http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep). This was an additional, unplanned deliverable and is not quantifiable in terms of credits.

3.2.5 Ongoing support and guidance from the lead partner

Leicester supported the cascade partners in the following ways:

Initial meetings and workshops with senior management, project teams and academic contributors

Regular phone calls and visits to partners as the need arose

Monthly online project meetings

Sharing the documentation and templates used in OTTER

Coordinating joint presentations and dissemination activities (Appendix D). The cascade process has been mapped out in the form of a “Scaffold for Institutional Adoption and Implementation of OERs” (Appendix B).

3.2.6 Evaluation

The OSTRICH project was evaluated in two ways:

Internal evaluation at the cascade partner institutions: o For Bath’s internal evaluation processes and findings, please see

http://go.bath.ac.uk/pxdg. o For Derby’s internal evaluation processes and findings, please see

http://tinyurl.com/derby-internal-eval.

An external evaluation conducted by Peter Chatterton. Interviews with stakeholders took place from the beginning of June to mid-August 2011. For an overview of the external evaluation, please see Appendix G. The evaluation report will be available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs in early September.

3.2.7 Refinement of CORRE framework and emergence of CORRE 2.0

The CORRE (Content, Openness, Reuse and Repurposing, Evidence) workflow framework generated during the OTTER project (www.tinyurl.otter-corre) was validated at Bath and Derby during OSTRICH for converting existing teaching materials into OERs. At Bath, where the focus was on the creation of new materials from scratch as OERs, a modified version of CORRE, CORRE 2.0 (Appendix A), evolved. CORRE 2.0 replaced the original CORRE model as it incorporated both the process of converting existing materials to OERs and the process of creating OERs from scratch. CORRE 2.0 was developed through discussion and negotiation with OSTRICH team members from all three institutions at a workshop in Leicester, and in ongoing discussions between the Bath project team and content. In these discussions, content creators said they believed that incorporating elements from CORRE in their established learning design and content creation process might make the process less time- and resource-heavy, thus potentially making the release of OERs more sustainable. The transition to the new version of CORRE was presented at OER11 (http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-oer11) and described on the OSTRICH blog at http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-blog. Bath’s own





http://www.tinyurl.otter-corre/



http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-blog



of 27

interpretation of CORRE 2.0 is depicted at http://go.bath.ac.uk/dorre – this diagram reflects work in progress and is in the process of being simplified and streamlined to make it “adoptable” by other institutions. For further details on the development of the CORRE and DORRE workflow models, please see section 3.3.4.

3.2.8 Dissemination The OSTRICH project was the subject of ten external conference presentations and a wide range of internal events at Bath and Derby. For a full list of the extensive dissemination that was carried out, which went far beyond the commitment in the project plan to present at three events, please see Appendix D. Appendices E and F outline the internal dissemination events held by the cascade partner institutions, which were aimed at increasing stakeholder engagement. A proposal for a journal article has also been submitted to the special edition of Distance Education (Vol. 33, Issue 2, 2012): “The OER mix: purpose, process, product and policy”, by Samuel Nikoi (Aberystwyth University) and Alejandro Armellini (University of Leicester). The Editor is currently reviewing the abstract.

3.3 What did you learn?

3.3.1 Repository lessons

The original plan, to repurpose Bath’s existing FAQ engine as a repository for the OSTRICH OERs, was found to be unviable. (See section 3.2.3.) After consultation with partners, the team at Bath created the repository in Drupal. This turned out to be to the project’s (and the sector’s) advantage, as the Drupal code has now been made available as an open access platform for others to copy and use at http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep.

Key lessons learnt from the creation of the repository include:

A well-documented API for Jorum Open would have eased the porting of OER records into that repository, as required by the project. We found that for the quantity of OERs to be added, it would be more effective to input manually to Jorum Open than to invest time in attempting to set up the RSS feed directly into the repository

The lack of an adopted and widely accepted metadata standard, for example DC-Education or IEEE LOM, limits the interoperability of any such repository. Such a standard would facilitate automated creation of standardised metadata, where applicable, which would help to describe the records more thoroughly and evenly.

3.3.2 Lecture capture lessons

The Bath team planned at the start of the project to convert video recordings of lectures to OERs. Panopto software was used for lecture capture, and although the technology is still in its infancy at Bath, approximately 1,000 hours of recordings have been made to date. However, consultation with stakeholders showed that more guidance and documentation were needed before such recordings could be turned into OERs as originally envisaged. Guidelines have therefore been developed by the OSTRICH team at Bath around copyright specific to lecture capture, quality criteria for video produced for in-house and external release, a process for lecture capture from start to finish, and a consent form for lecture capture. (See http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc.) Downloads of the support materials have been in the hundreds and positive feedback has been received within the institution and from the wider community. Although the actual lecture capture materials could not be released as OERs as hoped, there has been a great deal of institutional learning, and some institutional change in this regard.






of 27

3.3.3 Copyright and intellectual property (IP) policy lessons

Several copyright and intellectual property lessons were learnt through the OSTRICH project:

At Bath, academics own the IP of their “scholarly output”, which includes the learning materials they produce. At most other UK universities IP policy generally allocates ownership to the institution. As a result of OSTRICH, a Deed of Licence was developed by the Intellectual Property Legal Services team to allow academics to give the institution formal permission to release resources as OERs (http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/52674). Other IP ownership issues that had to be addressed included: the JISC Terms and Conditions for the project, decisions over licences for release, and difficulty in releasing withdrawn units of study as OERs.

Use of third party materials in resources developed at Bath has highlighted staff misconceptions about copyright and permissions/licences. Members of the OSTRICH team were able to correct these during ongoing internal events and informal discussions with stakeholders.

Complexities of IP ownership can complicate the release of content as OER – the project has attempted to clarify and highlight some on these in the following FAQ (http://go.bath.ac.uk/quvu):

o Authors working with the University and other external partners can lead to the IP of the work being governed by several different written agreements. Explicit signoff from external funders or partners may be required for the University to add the content to the OSTRICH repository on their behalf.

o The University has to have written permission from academics to release their content as OER, but the content may have been developed over several years. New units of study may include elements of previous units, and permission may be needed from earlier authors if the new resource includes a substantial amount of the original content.

IP developments at Derby arising out of OSTRICH included the creation of a draft YouTube policy, and draft updates to the institutional IP policy which address the IP issues relevant to publishing under an open licence. (http://tinyurl.com/youtube-at-derby)

3.3.4 OER production workflow lessons

Early lessons learnt about OER production and workflow processes were collated and presented by the OSTRICH team at OER11 (http://tinyurl.com/corre-to-dorre-oer11). The main lessons learnt by the project as a whole were as follows:

a) The original CORRE workflow model from the OTTER project (www.tinyurl.com/otter-corre) worked well for project teams converting existing teaching materials into OERs. This was confirmed not only by the OSTRICH cascade partners, but also by various other JISC-funded projects (e.g. SCOOTER, DELILA and TIGER).

b) In cases where OERs were being developed from scratch, the CORRE workflow needed to be modified to integrate OER processes into the curriculum design stage. The revised version of CORRE allows for the creation of new materials, and has been renamed CORRE 2.0 (Appendix A). CORRE 2.0 replaces the original version of CORRE from the OTTER project.

c) The tasks identified in the CORRE 2.0 framework are not necessarily linked to specific roles within an institution. For example, intellectual property rights (IPR) clearance may be carried out by the academics, by a copyright librarian, or by a member of the OER project team. In the OER11 presentation, we demonstrated this by showing the CORRE model in its “plain vanilla” form and then colour-coding it for the different institutions to show how the same task might be performed by different individuals/ groups in each case. Updated versions of these “vanilla” and “flavoured” CORRE models can be seen in Appendix A (also available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2).

In addition to these generic lessons, the partner institutions noted some specific lessons learnt:


http://go.bath.ac.uk/quvu







of 27

OER workflow lessons from Derby:

The screening process was critical to ensure that time was not wasted trying to convert materials that were unviable as OERs (usually because of IPR issues). The transformation stage involved mainly replacing images where copyright was potentially being infringed. The original plan was to enhance the content, including by adding video, reworking graphics, looking at pedagogy, looking at support for learning processes (e.g. setting up model wikis), and adding formative assessment into the materials. However, very little of this kind of transformation turned out to be possible with the large volume of print materials that had to be processed. This lesson mirrors Leicester’s experience in OTTER and the OU’s experience with OERs (Lane, 2006).

OER workflow lessons from Bath:

Bath worked with the original CORRE framework in cases where existing learning materials were converted to OER format. The depth of detail CORRE gives in the checklists (http://tinyurl.com/corre-checklists) and tracking sheets (http://tinyurl.com/corre-trackingsheets) about the decisions that need to be taken during each stage of the conversion formed a useful starting point for informing and guiding participants in the project. The CORRE model was adapted slightly for use at Bath to reflect the more devolved approach to a support model within the institution: whilst some elements were still undertaken by the central OER team, other adaptations were devolved back to the content ‘owner’ for processing. Since there is no Copyright Officer role at the University, support materials were created to guide staff in this aspect of the OER process. It was also found that, whilst in the main the linear approach that CORRE implies was generally followed, there is a need for dialogue and an iterative process between OER team and author with regard to the academic content and learning design of resources.

A high proportion of OERs at the University of Bath were created from scratch rather than converted from existing materials. In discussions with content creators it became clear that in these cases it might be more appropriate (in terms of effective use of time and resources) to build the elements of CORRE into a content creation process. This adaptation of CORRE recognises that many elements of OER (e.g. quality assurance, permissions to use third party materials, accessibility, appropriate file formats, logical structure, clear learning outcomes) can be mirrored within an effective learning design process. The DORRE model was developed to explore how these elements can be supported by the OER team within a learning design framework and what additional OER-specific elements are required to ‘top and tail’ the process to enable easy release of new content as OER. The DORRE model is currently under development (see work in progress at http://go.bath.ac.uk/dorre), and support resources have been put in place (http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/resources).

3.4 Immediate Impact

3.4.1 What difference has OSTRICH made in the partner institutions?

Highlights of the impact that OSTRICH has made at Derby and Bath include:

IPR policy development at both institutions: discussions taking place at Bath about providing more IPR support for academic staff; new IP documentation in place at Bath (e.g. Deed of Licence); Derby IP policy being updated by the Working Group (See 3.1, point 5); YouTube policy under consideration at Derby (http://tinyurl.com/youtube-at-derby).

Increase in copyright resources available to staff (handouts, FAQs, etc.) for good practice in learning materials – wider impact beyond OERs.

Process and guidance developments regarding the use of Panopto lecture capture at Bath (http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc).

Development of a repository containing OERs from both institutions.

Learning curves for a range of stakeholders at both institutions about open access and OERs, as evidenced by the internal evaluations (http://go.bath.ac.uk/pxdg and See http://tinyurl.com/derby-internal-eval) and external evaluation.

Senior management at both institutions seeing OER as a potentially effective marketing tool: e.g. at Derby, the Dean of the Faculty responsible for the Environmental module was eager to

http://tinyurl.com/corre-checklists

http://tinyurl.com/corre-checklists

http://tinyurl.com/corre-trackingsheets


http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/resources







of 27

release half the module, in the expectation that potential fee-paying students would enrol in order to have access to the whole module.

Discussions with staff involved in OSTRICH and engaged through awareness raising activities (Directors of Studies and Head of CPD Support & Development Office) suggest that they may see some benefit in engaging with OERs as a potentially effective marketing tool or as a means of providing “taster” resources for current students choosing future options of study. It is clear from these discussions that OERs are firmly on the agenda at Derby and Bath, and are there to stay.

3.4.2 How has the wider community benefitted from OSTRICH? The wider community has benefited from OSTRICH in many ways, for example:

An open source repository has been made available (http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/node/64)

The validation of the CORRE framework and its revision as CORRE 2.0 (Appendix A) to allow for designing OERs from scratch

Scaffold for Institutional Adoption and Implementation of OERs (Appendix B) to enable other institutions to follow the processes that were successful at Leicester, Derby and Bath

OERs available in areas where there was previously a dearth of OERs, such as quarrying, hairdressing and construction.

Use of Nottingham’s Xerte project and engagement with the developers on use of their toolkit.

Documentation and guidelines around lecture capture (http://go.bath.ac.uk/sktc). These documents have been shared with the wider academic community and received positive feedback.

Guidance on finding and using open third party content in your learning materials (http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/node/44) was released as an OER and shared with colleagues from St Xavier's College, Mumbai, who are now empowered to run a similar workshop with colleagues in India.

3.4.3 How has OSTRICH changed the attitudes and practices of stakeholders?

The following table captures the central aspects of changes in attitude and practice by the key stakeholders in OSTRICH. While other factors (in addition to OSTRICH) may have influenced these changes, it is fair to say that OSTRICH played, at least, a catalyst role in bringing them about.

Key Stakeholders Before OSTRICH Now

E-learning support team

Design and production support for internal captive audience (registered students).

Support for open design and production, reaching a global audience.

IT Services (Derby) and e-learning support team (Bath)

VLEs and content management systems designed with an institutional focus.

Support for and hosting of open repository.

Academics (contributors to OSTRICH)

Content to benefit students within closed environments such as the virtual learning environment (VLE). Concerns about ‘not developed here’ materials.

Content to benefit the wider community, including prospective students and self-learners, as well as the authors of the content. OERs from elsewhere are reviewed as an integral part of curriculum design process.

IP and Legal Services Dept

No awareness of CC licence Head of IP has much better understanding of open education practices and CC licences, and of consent issues around lecture capture.






of 27

Library For teaching materials, nobody with an IPR role (Bath); existing IPR policy does not fully cater for OER development work (Derby).

Bath: greater awareness amongst library staff about open content, e.g. discussions with research publications repository manager enabled sharing of working practices and ideas about repositories. Derby: updating of existing IPR policy.

Senior Management Team

Interest in OERs and acknowledgement of their potential.

An understanding of the tangible benefits of openness in terms of quality enhancement of teaching materials, global visibility and promotion (expressed in meetings with members of the OSTRICH team).

3.5 Future Impact

The ultimate desired impact of the OSTRICH project at Derby and Bath is for open practices to be embedded in institutional practices around curriculum design, development and delivery. Plans to sustain the gains made during OSTRICH include tracking the use of OERs and keeping senior management informed of any evidence of impact. Other activities that are likely to have a positive future impact on the cascade institutions are:

Work done by the members of the OSTRICH team on initiating the development of a “Copyright for Learning Resources Matrix” document, which contains FAQs about IP issues in relation to different types of media (e.g. images, text, video, sound), and in different situations (in-house, lecture capture, OERs); the JISC OER IPR Support Team has commented on the potential value of such a document and is considering continuing the work that has been started on it

Consideration of the lessons learnt during OSTRICH in any future revisions of institutional policies

Inclusion of CORRE 2.0 workflow process in the services offered by the e-learning support teams and integration of OERs in learning design initiatives at both institutions

Bidding for additional funds to continue progressing towards OER maturity

In addition:

A book is to be published by a Derby academic involved in OSTRICH, Jamie Grace, called “Open Educational Resources for Legal Pedagogy: the altruism of a competitive Law school engaged in new learning and teaching”. The book includes references to OSTRICH.

An M.Sc. dissertation, “Designing for Openness: using online interviews to explore learning design workflows for the creation of OER,” by Julian Prior from the University of Bath OSTRICH team, is due for completion next academic year.

4 Conclusions

The project team found the collaboration between institutions purposeful and felt that the quality of outputs, e.g. the refined CORRE model (CORRE 2.0), and new guidelines for production of OERs, was significantly greater than it would have been had we been working in isolation.

We concluded that the CORRE framework generated during the OTTER project (www.tinyurl.com/otter-corre) was transferable to institutions that want to convert existing materials to OERs, but needed some modification to cater for the need to design from scratch. The new, revised CORRE 2.0 (www.tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2) replaces the original version of CORRE and provides a more holistic workflow model.


http://www.tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2



of 27

Both top-down and bottom-up engagement are necessary for success, right from the beginning. In both Derby and Bath, commitment from senior management was necessary to enable the OER work to begin, but commitment from the project team, academics, middle management and other stakeholders was essential for successful implementation.

Evidence is the key to credibility. Evidence of practices, materials, processes and policies is necessary for successful knowledge transfer and cascading. Research evidence (such as tracking statistics on OERs and data on how academics and students use OERs) is what academic contributors relate to as they consider further involvement in OER initiatives, and is also what senior managers request in order to make strategic decisions about resourcing future OER work. All partners in OSTRICH would like to focus more on gathering this kind of evidence in our future work.

Trust is central to OERs, but also to any cascade process. A day of focused face-to-face work can remove the need for many hours of online meetings.

OSTRICH has not produced a culture shift at Bath and Derby. It has, however, put OERs on the list of their strategic priorities and has put the institutions on the UK OER map. It has initiated processes that both universities can pursue in order to generate institutional and sector benefit.

Bath University found the conversion of existing materials to OERs to be resource-intensive. They found it valuable to focus on good practice in creation of new materials that could be wholly or partially released as OERs as well as converting existing content. However, experience at Derby and Bath – and the Leicester experience during OTTER – showed that the conversion of existing materials to OERs can add real value in many ways, with the resources being improved in the conversion process. This experience has highlighted the importance of the “screening” stage in the CORRE process, to ensure that only those items that are viable are selected for OER transformation.

5 Recommendations

5.1 Recommendations for the HE sector

The CORRE 2.0 framework (Appendix A) is recommended for use by other institutions. The revised model caters both for institutions transforming existing materials into OERs, and for those creating OERs from the course design stage.

The Scaffold for Institutional Adoption and Implementation of OERs (Appendix B) collates the lessons learnt for implementing an OER programme at the three partner institutions, and is recommended for use by institutions that wish to start working with OERs.

Both institutions found that integrating OER development and support work into the workflow of existing academic support teams was very successful, and would recommend this route to other institutions where possible.

5.2 Recommendations for the HEA/JISC

Changes in practice and attitude are more easily achieved with supporting evidence. The more contextualised the evidence, the easier it is to promote positive change. It is probably time to consider moving away from offering funding for OER production and evaluation, in favour of the generation of evidence through structured research projects into various aspects of OERs.

Learning design processes for academic course teams have been key enablers of OER reuse and production. Streamlining the release of ‘OER candidate’ materials to a suitable repository via an embedded option within the VLE could encourage potential contributors to release their content openly, rather than publish it to the VLE only. It may be possible for the funders to offer specific guidance on this, including technical support and exemplars.

Embarking on an OER programme within the context of an established need, such as improved learning design, is more likely to trigger enthusiasm and engagement than



of 27

simply “doing OERs” for the sake of it. Stakeholders need to see the potential benefits, e.g. lower costs of design or delivery, or opportunities for enhanced reputations globally.

6 Implications for the future

6.1 New development work that could be undertaken

In line with the above recommendations, the following ideas could carry our work (and that of OSTRICH’s sister projects) further:

Research projects into a variety of OER-related issues, with a view to generating evidence in usable formats to which stakeholders can relate. This evidence would encourage changes at all levels, within institutions and across the sector, and would contribute to moving the OER agenda further. Examples would be: examining the match (or mismatch) between supply of OERs and demand or need; investigating cascade processes in organisational change; and measuring the true cost of OERs against their value; and challenges in OER-based design.

It would be particularly relevant (and probably highly cost-effective) to fund a series of projects that combine the lessons learned from the JISC Curriculum Design and Delivery projects with those from the OER Programme. The focus would be on embedding and sustaining an OER culture through curriculum design and delivery. While some progress has been made in this respect, the benefit of capitalising on both aspects in a structured manner would return significant value to the sector and to the funders.

From a more technical point of view, there is potential to develop the Drupal repository (http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep) to create an electronic workflow with built-in version control, signoff processes and workflow support, similar to the system used by the Open Courseware Consortium. The system would be built around the tried and tested CORRE 2.0 framework. This would provide substantial support for the project management of OER development work and would save time for all members of the OER support team.

6.2 Sustainability of project outputs At both Bath and Derby, the OER support and release work has been carried out by teams whose remit is to support academics with course design and multimedia development. These teams will continue to integrate open educational practices into their activities. Embedding and sustaining an OER culture through curriculum design and delivery will help these institutions to take a strategic approach to sustainability and designing for openness. Senior managers in both institutions have indicated that they will consider the findings from tracking statistics in future in order to evaluate the potential value of OERs for marketing and recruitment purposes. OER adoption in learning design and OER production and release, in their own right, can provide for OER sustainability. The ‘pressure’ and evidence to implement systematic OER processes should come from OER practitioners – and a critical mass of those is needed to make OERs a credible and viable proposition. We, the practitioners, are not there yet. We therefore need further funding and top-level support to push this agenda forward, ultimately making OER practices normalised and sustainable.




of 27

7 References Hawkridge, D., Armellini, A., Nie, M., Padilla Rodriguez, B.C. & Witthaus, G. (in press). Digital audio for asynchronous interactive learning at an English university. In Jiyou Jia (Ed.) Educational Stages and Interactive Learning: From Kindergarten to Workplace Training. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI

Global. Hawkridge, D., Armellini, A., Nikoi, S., Rowlett, T. & Witthaus, G. (2010). Curriculum, intellectual property rights and open educational resources in British universities-and beyond. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(3), 162-176. Lane, A., (2006). From Pillar to Post: exploring the issues involved in repurposing distance learning materials for use as Open Educational Resources. Found at: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=9724 Nikoi, S., Rowlett, T., Armellini, A. & Witthaus, G. (forthcoming). CORRE: A framework for evaluating and transforming teaching materials into Open Educational Resources. Open Learning, accepted for publication on 9/11/2010.

http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=9724



of 27

APPENDIX A: CORRE 2.02

The CORRE 2.0 framework provides an overview of the stages and processes that the OER project teams at the Universities of Leicester, Bath and Derby went through in the OTTER and OSTRICH projects (www.le.ac.uk/otter and www.le.ac.uk/ostrich) to produce and release OERs, and may be of use to project teams in other institutions wishing to do the same. The CORRE framework is a major element of the “Scaffold for Institutional Adoption and Implementation of OERs” (Appendix B), and should be used in conjunction with the detailed CORRE checklist and tracking sheets available at www.tinyurl.com/otter-docs.

The CORRE 2.0 diagram (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2) is based on the original CORRE workflow model from the OTTER project (www.tinyurl.com/otter-corre). We have evidence that this model worked well for project teams who were converting existing teaching materials into OERs not only from the OSTRICH cascade partners, but also from various other JISC-funded OER projects (e.g. SCOOTER and DELILA). The CORRE model was updated and renamed CORRE 2.0 during the OSTRICH project, when project partners started developing OERs from scratch and found that the CORRE workflow needed to be modified to integrate OER processes into the curriculum design stage. CORRE 2.0 allows for the creation of new materials as well as transformation of existing materials into OERs. CORRE 2.0 therefore replaces the original version from the OTTER project.

The tasks identified in the CORRE 2.0 framework are not necessarily linked to specific roles within an institution. For example, intellectual property rights (IPR) clearance may be carried out by the academics, by a copyright librarian, or by a member of the OER project team. In the OER11 presentation, we demonstrated this by showing the CORRE model in its “plain vanilla” form and then colour-coding it for the different institutions to show how the same task might be performed by different individuals/ groups in each case. Updated versions of these “flavoured” CORRE models can be seen on the following page.

2 Also available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-corre2



http://www.tinyurl.com/otter-docs






of 27



of 27

APPENDIX B: SCAFFOLD FOR INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OERS

3

The diagram on the following two pages represents the actions taken by the University of Leicester (in the OTTER project) and the Universities of Bath and Derby in the OSTRICH project, and may be a useful guide to ‘scaffold’ other OER project teams through the processes of adoption and implementation of OERs at their institutions.

3 Also available at http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs




of 27

1. Planning

1. Senior Management Team engagement

2. Stakeholder analysis

3. Engagement of key stakeholders

4. Knowledge transfer

Present the case for OERs to senior management

OER - Getting Started (Why

OERs?)


Identify stakeholders, e.g.:

Learning and Teaching

Enhancement Unit

Academics

Senior management

Middle management

Library

IT Services

OSTRICH Project Plan (See

stakeholder analysis on p9 as an

example):


OTTER report: Stakeholder

views on OERs.

http://tinyurl.com/otter-docs

Awareness-raising activities

OTTER dissemination:

http://tinyurl.com/otter-

dissemination

OSTRICH dissemination:

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-

dissemination

OER FAQs:


OER: Opening up the world of

learning:


Bath’s OER resources:

http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer/resour

ces/

Workshops and meetings with stakeholders

Stage Action needed Resources from OSTRICH and OTTER

projects

5. Decision-making on key aspects

Repository platform

Branding

Ownership of IP

Licensing

Quality management

Support for OER work

Sustainability

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence by the OSTRICH project (www.le.ac.uk/le/ostrich) v1.2 (22/08/2011). Photo from www.flickr.com/photos/on1stsite/3807975608/in/photostream/.

Photo from on1stsite at http://www.flickr.com/photos/on1stsite/3807975608/in/photostream/.




http://tinyurl.com/otter-dissemination

http://tinyurl.com/otter-dissemination

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-dissemination

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-dissemination





http://www.le.ac.uk/le/ostrich

http://www.flickr.com/photos/on1stsite/3807975608/in/photostream/




of 27

2. Implementation

6. Repository creation (if required)

7. OER development

8. Evaluation and celebration

Create a repository on institution’s local system or using open source software, if required.

DRUPAL open source repository

shell: http://go.bath.ac.uk/oer-rep

Example of a populated

repository:

http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk

Create OERs, either by

starting from scratch, or

by gathering existing

materials and converting

them into OERs.

Release OERs on the

agreed repository/

repositories.

CORRE 2.0 workflow framework:

http://tinyurl.com/corre2

Bath’s implementation model for

CORRE 2.0 (“DORRE”):


Detailed CORRE checklists

Partner agreement

Project management template

Presentation and reporting

templates

Copyright do’s and don’ts

OER file formats

Put-up and take-down policy

All available at: http://tinyurl.com/otter-docs

Gather feedback from

participants and users and

by tracking usage of

published OERs.

Feed feedback in to

ongoing OER

development processes.

Examples of evaluation reports:

Bath’s internal evaluation


OTTER external evaluation:

http://tinyurl.com/otter-evaluation

OSTRICH external evaluation:


Stage

Action needed

Resources from OTTER and OSTRICH

projects

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence by the OSTRICH project (www.le.ac.uk/le/ostrich) v1.2 (22/08/2011). Photo from www.flickr.com/photos/on1stsite/3807975608/in/photostream/.

Photo from on1stsite at http://www.flickr.com/photos/on1stsite/3807975608/in/photostream/.


http://ostrich.bath.ac.uk/

http://tinyurl.com/corre2




http://tinyurl.com/otter-evaluation


http://www.le.ac.uk/le/ostrich





of 27

APPENDIX C: OERs released at Bath and Derby

Derby OER Release (as at 22 August 2011)

Subject Credits

promised

Credits released

(22/08/2011)

Future credits

planned

School of Culture & Lifestyle 30 30

School of Art and Design 30 0 30

Staff Development Unit 40 0 40

Psychology 0 30

Law 0 30

Environmental Management 0 15

Business 0 15

Quarrying 0 5

Maths 0 10

Construction 0 5

Careers 0 2

Total credits 100 142 212

Bath OER Release (as at 22 August 2011)

Subject Credits

promised Credits

(22/08/2011)

Future credits

planned

Staff and Student Development Materials (e-Learning Team & LTEO) 40 26.5 7

Division for Life-Long Learning 40 18 10

Panopto Lecture Capture (various departments) 20 0

Engineering Distance Learning programmes 0 19.5

Chemistry Transition Materials 0 4

Total Credits 100 68 85



of 27

APPENDIX D: DISSEMINATION

Date Event Location Presentation

7 April 2011 Presentation at Open Nottingham Seminar (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-opennotts11)

University of Nottingham

Some thoughts on OER reuse: from Derby to Kabul.

14 April 2011 Presentation for Learning Futures Festival (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-lff11)

University of Leicester and online (global audience)

Challenging OERs

14 April 2011 Presentation for UKOLN (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-ukolnpresentation)

University of Bath and online (global audience)

Introducing the OSTRICH project and its repository

7 May 2011 Project Management Institute Global Accreditation Forum (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-pmi2011)

Dublin Conference Centre

Designing Open Education Resources for Project Management

11 May 2011 OER11 (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-oer11)

Manchester Developing workflow frameworks for the creation of sustainable Open Educational Resources: Built in or bolted on?

12 May 2011 OER workshop for Innovations Day (http://go.bath.ac.uk/fvgd)

University of Bath (internal and international audience)

OER: Opening up the world of learning

16 May 2011 University of Hull Staff Development event

University of Hull Open Educational Resources in learning design

11 July 2011 Educational Innovation Forum University of Valencia, Spain

Innovation for effective learning in higher education

July 2011 Various sessions USQ & Swinburne University, Australia

Various dissemination activities

Sept 2011 ALT-C (http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-altc2011)

Leeds, UK Designing for learning with open educational resources

Dec 2011 Online Educa Berlin Berlin TBC, subject to acceptance

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-opennotts11

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-opennotts11

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-lff11

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-ukolnpresentation

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-ukolnpresentation

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-pmi2011

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-pmi2011

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-oer11

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-oer11

http://go.bath.ac.uk/fvgd

https://securewebmail.le.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=adc141d2366c419eaf4ca426a76fc052&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.uv.es%2fudie%2fencuentros.htm

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-altc2011

http://tinyurl.com/ostrich-altc2011



of 27

APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS-RAISING AND ENGAGEMENT AT BATH

Stakeholders Ac

ad

em

ics

Se

nio

r M

an

ag

em

en

t

Su

pp

ort

Se

rvic

es

Stu

de

nts

Wid

er

Co

mm

un

ity

1. Presentations:

a) Presentation to Directors of Studies Forum x x

b) Presentations at Learning and Teaching Enhancement Office meeting on OSTRICH project in and IP/copyright in learning and teaching materials

x

c) Presentation to South West Educational Developers Forum x

2. Meetings:

a) Regular meetings with staff committed to contributing materials x x

b) Meetings with individual academics and Directors of Studies to discuss awareness of and perception of OER

x x

c) Meetings with Library Services re copyright processes and guidance and comparative review of Research publication repository

x

d) Meeting with Library, Head of IP and Director of Learning and Teaching Enhancement Office to discuss current provision of support and guidance on IP and copyright

x x

e) Meeting with Web Development Manager x

f) Meetings with Audio Visual team and Learning Technologist responsible for video lecture capture (including liaison with Legal Services and Head of IP) around good practice

x

g) Meeting with Head of Students Union x

3. Events:

a) Internal seminar run by members of the Leicester project team for OSTRICH contributors at Bath, Oct 2010 (http://go.bath.ac.uk/z9hy)

x x

b) OSTRICH and OER presence and poster at ESTICT (Engaging Students Through In-Class Technologies) Special Interest Group event (17 Nov 2010).

x x x

c) OSTRICH and OER presence and poster at Xerte Training Day aimed at content creators and other academics from Bath and other institutions (19 Jan 2011).

x x x

d) OER workshop at Learning and Teaching Enhancement Office institution-wide Innovations Day (May 2011)

x x x x

4. Other awareness-raising:

a) Institutional OER blog (www.blogs.bath.ac.uk/oer) x x x x x

b) Email brief for Directors of Studies highlighting OSTRICH project and inviting expressions of interest or one-on-one talks about OER

x

c) e-Learning Team staff development programme now includes seminar on ‘finding and using open content’

x x

http://go.bath.ac.uk/z9hy



of 27

APPENDIX F: STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS-RAISING AND ENGAGEMENT AT DERBY

1. Events: a) Internal seminar run by members of the Leicester project team at Derby for OSTRICH contributors, Oct 2010 (http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/oer-dreams-and-nightmares-in-derby/ and http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/oer-workflow-checklists-work-in-progress/) 2. Meetings: The following meetings have included OSTRICH as a rolling item on the agenda. Updates are given on progress on the OSTRICH project, issues are highlighted, positive aspects of the project are discussed, and opportunities are provided for Q&A sessions. a) Online Programme Leaders Forum – 12 Oct 2010 b) BCL (Business Computing and Law) Faculty Meeting – 13 Oct 2010 c) TELEC (Technology Enhanced Learning Education Committee) – 19 Oct 2010 d) TELAG (Technology Enhanced Learning Advisory Group) – 19 Oct 2010 e) TEL (Technology Enhanced Learning) – 27 Oct 2010 f) TELEC (Technology Enhanced Learning Education Committee) – 25 Nov 2010 g) LTA (Learning Teaching and Assessment) Forum – 7 Jan 2011 h) TELEC (Technology Enhanced Learning Education Committee) – 19 Jan 2011 i) BCL TELEC (Technology Enhanced Learning Education Committee) – 28 Jan 2011 j) UDB (University of Derby – Buxton) Learning and Teaching Event – 9 Feb 2011 k) TELAG (Technology Enhanced Learning Advisory Group) – 10 Feb 2011 l) LTA (Learning Teaching and Assessment Conference) – July 2011 (At least one session planned based on OERs and OSTRICH project).

http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/oer-dreams-and-nightmares-in-derby/

http://ostrichproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/oer-workflow-checklists-work-in-progress/


of 27 Document title: HEA/JISC Final Report Template Last updated: May 2011 - v1

APPENDIX G: EXTERNAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK The following evaluation framework has been provided by the external evaluator, Peter Chatterton. The evaluation report will be available at www.tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs from early September. 1. Overall:

a. Key achievements/successes. b. Key challenges encountered and how they were overcame. c. Key outputs achieved. d. Project management.

2. Stakeholder engagement and buy-in to the project:

a) Senior management. b) Programme teams. c) Support personnel. d) Students. e) The sector – SIGs? (subject sectors and WBL sectors). f) Sharing of effective OER practice. g) Further collaboration.

3. Cascade process

a) Institutional “readiness”. b) Critical success factors. c) Quality. d) Barriers/issues. e) Enablers.

4. OER model:

a) Contextualising/adapting to institutional approaches and cultures. b) Development processes – how did they change? c) Sustainability/embedding. d) Measuring impact of how adopted in institutions and the sector (measures, indicators,

sustaining after project completion). 5. OERs developed:

a) Quality. b) Measuring impact? c) Take up by institution + how embedded? d) Take up be sector. e) How “marketed/communicated”. f) Sustainability.

6. Embedding of process/model/framework:

a) Culture change required. b) Embedding in staff development programmes/digital literacies. c) Embedding in strategies and processes. d) Embedding in ways of working. e) Embedding in services. f) Alignment with QA-QE processes. g) Alignment with programme design/review processes.

7. Business models

http://www.tinyurl.com/ostrich-docs



of 27

8. Cost/benefit analysis? 9. CORRE Quality and evaluation framework.

a) Content b) Openness c) Reuse and re-purpose d) Evidence e) Take-up?

10. Key issues associated with OER development:

a) See JISC OER InfoKit. b) Academic creation and use. c) SMT buy-in. d) Ownership/legal. e) Dissemination/marketing.

11. Influence on institutional and sector policy on the future of OERs (evidence-based).

a) Institutional. b) Sector. c) JISC OER InfoKit.

12. Guidance documents.

a) Practical. b) Re-usable. c) Usable. d) Multi-format.

13. Future

a) Maturity toolkit? b) Future work identified? c) Sector. d) Sustaining measurement of impact.

The Higher Education Academy (HEA)/JISC Final Report · PDF fileThe Higher Education Academy...

Documents

Transcript of The Higher Education Academy (HEA)/JISC Final Report · PDF fileThe Higher Education Academy...