One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open Education OCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010 R. John Robertson 1 , Lorna Campbell 1 , Phil Barker 2 , Li Yuan 3 , and Sheila MacNeill 1 1 Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2 Institute for Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University 3 Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
One Standard to rule them all?: Descriptive Choices for Open Education
OCWC2010 Hanoi, May 5-7 2010
R. John Robertson1, Lorna Campbell1, Phil Barker2, Li Yuan3, and Sheila MacNeill1
1Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement, University of Strathclyde, 2Institute for
Computer Based Learning, Heriot-Watt University 3Institute for Cybernetic Education, University of Bolton
UKOER Programme
The Open Educational Resources Programme
is a collaboration between the JISC and the
Higher Education Academy in the UK.
The Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) has provided an initial £5.7
million of funding, (April 2009 to March 2010)
which will explore how to expand the open
availability and use of free, high quality online
educational resources.
UKOER Programme
The UK OER programme consists of 29 pilot
projects divided into three categories:
individual (i.e. personal) projects (8);
institutional projects (7)
multi-institutional subject-based consortium
projects (14).
Support for the programme is being provided by
a number of existing JISC services and the
Open University (UK) Score project.
JISC CETIS
JISC CETIS is one of three JISC
Innovation Support Centres (ISC),
supporting the sector through:
participating in standards bodies,
providing community forums for
sharing experiences in using
particular technologies and
standards
providing specific support for
JISC funded development
programmes such as the
UKOER programme.
Stereotype: the ‘Learning Object’
The „classic‟ model
the reusable learning object (RLO).
to strive to create context independent learning materials
IMS Content Packaging or ADL SCORM , IEEE LOM.
Description of pedagogy in metadata
VLE‟s and refined search tools
Examples: Ariadne network ,
But
real use of detailed educational fields, can be limited
seen as complex, requiring support from learning
technologists
often closed networks ~learning object economies
Stereotype: the ‘light touch’
Blogs, web 2.0 tools, websites
Minimal metadata
often author, title, license
often applied at site level
Frequent use of CC licenses (often integrated with tools)
RSS
Enthusiastic individuals
Examples:
But
Can be „closed‟/ unknown groups of people
Discoverability of specific items / unknown items can be
tricky
The UKOER approach
Guidelines
“any system capable of delivering content on the
open web”
Strongly encouraged to use platforms that can
create RSS for collections
Utilise existing technologies - not develop
Some descriptive information required
Required descriptive set
Tag: UKOER
Title
Author
Date
URL
File format (auto)
File size (auto)
Recommended descriptive set
Language
Subject classifications
Keywords
Tags
Comments
Description
Descriptive set (2)
Hoped for outcomes
Institutional change
Release of OERs
Freedom of choice allows opportunity to assess:
Selection
Suitability
Impact
Sustainability
Factors: CETIS
Seminar and presentations
Encouragement to consider local resource
description requirements
Presented context of wider OER initiatives
Did not promote any particular system, standard, or
other approach
Influence of CETIS‟ experience with standards
Factors: System Choice
Single biggest factor: native standards supported/
implemented in the system.
Pattern somewhat visible in project bids/plans
emerged clearly in technical conversations
True for both LO repositories and for web2.0 tools
Partially result of explicit prohibition of development
Some exceptions:
Support for multiple standards
Creation of mappings
Factors: project team background
Parallel to influence of system choice, teams will
use what they know
but lesser influence:
No budget for new systems
Though unlikely, staff turnover more likely than
system turnover
Factors: role of network/ community
Some communities have entry requirements
But relatively few projects engaged – most had
existing connections, or had deliberate aim to
engage.
Some examples:
OpenSpires – Matterhorn, iTunesU, and more
Berlin – OCWC RSS [predating programme but
revised]
Factors: aggregator services
Discovery tools
Often-based on OAI-PMH and RSS
But not as much of an influence as expected
Note: aggregation does not need to dictate local
standards; mapping is often possible, but system
dependent
One major exception...
Factors: iTunesU
Participation in iTunesU is
by agreement with Apple,
specific and somewhat idiosyncratic metadata
set granularity of materials
associated cover images
Issues around openness (license, software, reuse)
Massive draw for faculty contributions
Aside: institutional channels and individual channels
Factors: JorumOpen
National repository for learning materials
Launch of JorumOpen
Slightly different descriptive requirements to
programme
Influence of deposit tools
Version 1
Version 2
Bulk options
Influence of perceptions on both platform and
standard
Influence on international participation
Patterns of use: one standard?
Is there [with apologies to Tolkien]:
‘One [standard] to rule them all,One [standard] to find them,
One [standard] to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them’?
20
Patterns of use: preliminary notes
Data gathered from technical review calls as part of programme
support
All 29 projects recorded.
Projects may occur more than once in any given graph if they use
more than one of the technologies listed.
The graphs refer to the number of platforms that support a given
standard; they do not refer to or imply active use of the standard.
CMS refers to Content Management System and not to Course
Management System.
The data itself is available from the tool CETIS project monitoring