Tagged: oer

project: OERs & UCS

Post conversations with MS and CD, the following is being suggested to explore the potential of OERs at UCS.

Project Aim

  • to explore a sustainable and scaleable model for the roll out of OERs at UCS. In particular;
    • getting started guide for the lecturer: What is an OER? How do you discover them and how might you use them in your teaching? (work package 1)
    • how do other UK HEIs create and manage OERs? What lessons can UCS draw from other institutions experience? (work package 2)

Phase 1: Complete July 2011

The Elevate Team will;

  • write a short paper which sets the context of OERs, and the aims and timeframe of this investigation to be presented to the Executive Committee: start of April
  • getting started guide: start of May
  • how do other UK HEIs create and manage OERs? What lessons can UCS draw? end of July

OER Repository, Bath and Derby

An outcome of the OSTRICH event was the need to provide the OER repository at the University of Bath. This will be used by Derby as an external store for their materials (as well as holding a local version, and uploading to Jorum Open).

I’ve shared an overview of our Repository … see … https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1dpTqXySi_5y4WOAWR92yH_7D3pS2ci9v9LY4KCpz0kw&hl=en

The idea for members of Derby, for this project only, is to provide them admin rights to the FAQ engine which holds the searchable metadata and the link to the resource(s). They will be expected to upload the item (metadata) to the FQA search engine, and the provide the links to where they’ve hosted the resources. Note, the OER repository is a store of metadata, it does not store the actual files, they’ll need to manage these on their local servers. They will be expected to complete the validation process and sign off all (take responsibility) before uploaded the metadata item.

When uploaded they’ll be clearer tagged as Derby (note this will be in a Bath branded system).

They will need to comply with our take down policy. The recommended process is if asked the take down will be Bath will take down, and contact Derby, they investigate and communicate with the people involved. They then inform Bath of the outcome and appropriate action is taken.

The system will use Google Analytics to track user stats – they’ll be provided a monthly report by the Bath OSTRICH manager (Vic Jenkins) on usage.

This is a devolved service, the expectation is Derby will take responsibility and ownership over their own materials, Bath will simply ensure there are no barriers to them completing this work.



OER for quality: a staff dev perspective

We (Bath) have had Ale and Gabi from University of Leicester visiting for the last few days as part of the OSTRICH project. A recurring message through out the sessions is a OER is good for quality assurance. The rationale being if resources are going to be made available for all through an institutionally branded repository they’ll need to accommodate current best practice in terms of accessibility, usability and IPR/Copyright, and as they are the “shop window” for the world they’ll also need to demonstrate good educational design.

I’d suggest from an educational perspective, the second point, around good educational design is really important as a strong vehicle for enhancing our staff development programme. As illustrated below, the current staff development programme (at Bath and others) has a strong emphasis in the low impact, awareness raising area. We strive to make this highly searchable, so we can release resources (e-learning people) to focus on more one to ones. However, we have a problem with the higher value added activities (1-2-1s, PGCAPP, external qualifications), which is one of scaleability, and sustainability. We know it is more effective, however, we’ve not the resources to sustain this initiative. This is further compounded by few staff being motivated to active engage. See

However, the OER approach is a really good opportunity for our staff development programme to contact through an authentic activity which staff are motivated to participate in. For instance, we are using a version of the CORRE model, which is devolved and focused on iterative design …

The emphasis of this model is the OER Manager, and/or e-Learning Development Officer works with the academics to develop the OER resource. As part of this process they’ll engage with the academics around the learning design aspects. Introducing them to current best practice and challenging their ideas. This will act as a very effective staff development tool.

Within this devolved CORRE model there are a number of key stakeholders;

OER development team – local

  • Academic(s)
  • Student(s)
  • e-learning Development Officer (local)

OER development team – dispersed

  • OER Manager
  • e-learning Development Officers (central team)
  • IPR Team & Copyright Teams
  • Library – Copyright Development

This second (wider) team will be brought in when required by the e-Learning Development Officer (local) and/or the OER Manager. For instance, if converting existing material there maybe some need to explore copyright ownership of the material. In terms of directing the academic(s) to appropriate support networks (Library) or advise (Copyright Team). Alternatively, if developing there maybe assistance needed in finding appropriate creative commons licensed images etc.,

They will also maintain the OER metadata process and documentation for the resource. For instance, ensure all the documents and complete, and liaise with the OER Manager to ensure they’ve been signed off.

The responsibilities of the local e-Learning Development Officer will be to help promote OER within the Dept / Faculty, help identify potential contributors and work with people to create them.

The local e-learning Development Officer will also coordinate any required technical training for academics in terms of software packages. The intention is not for them to build / convert resources, however, they may need to work with the wider e-learning Team to ensure this happens.

Also, as the OER progresses the local e-Learning Development Officer will start to work with the OER Manager about further requirements, including validation procedures for uploading material to the OER repository.

How will this work in practice at Bath for this project?


OER development team – local (D4LLL)

  • Academic(s)
  • Student(s)
  • e-learning Development Officer (local): Marie Salter & Julian Prior

OER development team – dispersed

  • OER Manager: Vic Jenkins
  • e-learning Development Officers (central team): Nitin Parmar
  • IPR Team: Kerena
  • Copyright Teams:
  • Library – Copyright Development


OER development team – local (PGCAPP Unit 6)

  • Academic(s): Geraldine Jones
  • Student(s)
  • e-learning Development Officer (local): Geraldine Jones

OER development team – dispersed

  • OER Manager: Vic Jenkins
  • e-learning Development Officers (central team): Vic Jenkins, Julian Prior & Nitin Parmar
  • IPR Team: Kerena
  • Copyright Teams:
  • Library – Copyright Development

e-learning Materials

OER development team – local (e-learning material)

  • Academic(s): Vic Jenkins, Lisa McIver, Nitin Parmar, Julian Prior, Geraldine Jones
  • Student(s)
  • e-learning Development Officer (local): Vic Jenkins, Lisa McIver, Nitin Parmar, Julian Prior, Geraldine Jones
  • Coordinated by: Vic Jenkins & Head of e-Learning

OER development team – dispersed

  • OER Manager: Vic Jenkins
  • e-learning Development Officers (central team): Vic Jenkins, Lisa McIver, Nitin Parmar, Julian Prior, Geraldine Jones
  • IPR Team: Kerena
  • Copyright Teams:
  • Library – Copyright Development


Cascade Workshop – thoughts from day one

The following are some notes from day 1 of Leicester’s OER cascade workshops at Bath.

  • must get a clear definition of hours of learning = credits
  • liked the argument of using OER (publishing educational stuff openly) as a quality assurance mechanism. To expose ideas to different staff through the conversion / creation process. So great potential as a staff development mechanism assuming Departments had to release an amount of material.
  • Copyright – get the slides, the does and don’ts
  • have logs, manage risk – if we work with newly created material it should be OK for the project
  • need to develop a process for managing copyright – informed by documenting Momna’s experiences
  • all the materials are available from: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/projects/otter/about-otter-1/documentation
  • Vic to brief Gwen & Bernie a few weeks before each steering group
  • lots of documents to trac, look for some enhancements.
  • can enhance the process (according to Leicester) by improving quantity and quality of metadata


Take down policy: OER L&T Store at Bath

I’ve been looking around for a take down policy for our open educational resource repository at the University. The following is based on (find and replace on name) from the notice and take down policy of OPuS. It should be fine … It will be linked from each item in the repository (magic on the include). The main stumbling block is the Repository Manager … we do not have such a post. So, for the ostrich project this will be Vic 🙂


Notice & Takedown Policy

The University of Bath OER Learning and Teaching Store is an open access repository.

The University has endeavoured to ensure that no material deposited in the repository infringes any third party property rights or otherwise infringes UK law. However should you discover any content in the repository that you believe infringes your rights, please notify the Repository Manager (e-learning@bath.ac.uk) specifying the particular item(s) that is the subject of your complaint and the particular grounds for your complaint. These grounds may include

  • Unauthorised use by reason of reproduction and/or making available the protected material
  • Breach of any moral right (integrity/right not to have work subjected to derogatory treatment)
  • Issues on grounds other than copyright and/or related rights (e.g. defamation, breach of confidence, data protection)

On receipt of your complaint, the Repository Manager will make an initial assessment of the validity of the complaint and will promptly acknowledge its receipt.

Where the University considers the complaint to be without foundation, the University will inform you of this and provide supporting rationale.

Where the complaint is initially considered to be plausible and is to be pursued, the content that is subject to the complaint will be removed from the repository pending an agreed solution. The Repository Manager will then contact the contributor of the material and inform them that the item is subject to complaint and under what allegations. The contributor will be encouraged to allay your concerns. The Repository Manager will try to resolve the issue by mediating between you and the contributor.

The University will endeavour to resolve the issue swiftly and amicably to the satisfaction of both you (the complianant) and the contributor. If a resolution is found through mediating between the parties this will be enacted/initiated. This will involve one of the following outcomes:

  • The material need not be changed and the material is reinstated in the Repository
  • The material is reinstated in the Repository with changes made.
  • The material is permanently removed from the repository (although a metadata citation may remain)

OER – what CC license should we use?

A question which came up at the OER Ideas Factory session was, would we (the institution, mangers of the OER Repository Service) recommend a specific CC License?

I’ve been looking around, and emailed the HELF list. It looks like the simpler the CC license the better. This is for a number of reasons, firstly, we want the OERs to be used (otherwise, what is the point) hence the less barriers to use the better. Secondly, they need to be policed. So, a very practical recommendation for our OER project is;

At the discussion phase with staff (when we are getting the release forms), we suggest the default option of;

Where, people can

  • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to Remix — to adapt the work

under the following conditions

  • Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

    What does “Attribute this work” mean?

    The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
  • Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Given we’ll need to explain what this means for the creator of the OER, it will start the conversation about if they (the creator) is happy. It might also identify they are not, consequently it is not appropriate as an OER.

revisit the OER Model: how does it fit?

I’ve updated the model (V3 available from https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1bLgt9mfIn9P9ZgRsFmdx6Ct5dHV9PR0rH3h2XP9wbTA&hl=en&authkey=CNTFpbsE)

The broad model is designed for the creation of a sophisticated / large scale learning activity. However, Geraldine asked, what about a simple image, ie., an image from a microscope, which the staff member would wish to make available as an OER, with some technical notes what it is, filter used, stains, magnification etc., and some ideas around how they are likely to use it within a teaching and learning focus? This is clearly an OER (by definition). Very similar to the Biomed work at the ILRT Britsol, with image repositories.

So how might we use the model for this type of activity?

The model will still fit … (see below). I’ve just removed the parts which aren’t relevant. The model still highlights the areas where the academic, and OER manager would need to document before upload. Therefore, the framework would minimise the likelihood of the resource not being uploaded in the first place, and having to be removed in the future.