Libraries and OERs: OpenEd papers and survey

Posted on by

What role do libraries have in the release or use of Open Educational Resources?

I’ve an ongoing interest in the role of Libraries in Open Education and have a paper for OpenEd 2010 looking at ways academic libraries might be involved in the release and use of OERs. I’m excited about the chance to present some of my ideas to that community and was pleased to discover that Open.Michigan have a paper on Libraries and the future of OER. We’re going to co-ordinate our papers to complement each other.

Building on my earlier blog post, my paper focuses on potential roles of academic libraries in connection with the use and release of OER; I’d like to inform my reflection by asking about your experience and thoughts about the roles of libraries in this area. To help with this I’ve put together a short survey:

http://polldaddy.com/s/67EA133FBDEB56B0

There’s ten questions but most are quick responses. The survey is designed for OER projects and initiatives and there will be a follow up survey (at a later date) targeting the wider library community. I’ll blog the results as well as incorporating them into the paper.

Thanks in advance for your participation
John (in collaboration with the Open.Michigan team)

CETIS OER Gathering

Posted on by

We’re organising a developer event on harvesting, aggregating and collecting OERs. Creating an opportunity for developers to work on some of the issues around collecting and using OERs. We’re looking at technical issues around collecting OERs into your ‘system’ and sharing content from your ‘system’ with dynamic collections. More specifically we hope to:

  • learn more about ICoper -a major European project- working building tools for the discovery, recommendation, and annotation of learning materials.
  • explore the issues in incorporating third-party OERs in a repository,
  • explore the technologies available for the dynamic thematic collections envisaged by the OER phase 2 call for proposals, and
  • investigate what needs to be done to implement these technologies.

More details of the day can be found at http://wiki.cetis.org.uk/OER_Gathering which we’ll continue to update as we get feedback.

Tag: #cetisgath


We’d originally intended to run this as two back to back events but as a result of some of our expected participants (including a number of colleagues from ICoper) having conflicting commitments and being unable to attend we’ve decided to run the two days we’d planned for the OER Gathering as a single day: June 22nd.

To help structure the day and make sure that the concentrated event is able to focus on what participants are most interested in and the questions the community has in this area, we’d like some feedback from participants and other interested parties.

If you’re attending:

  • What’s your background? (developer, manager, researcher, …)
  • Within the scope of the event, what are you most interested in discussing?
  • If applicable, what would you like to demonstrate at the event?
  • What are you most interested in hearing more about/ seeing demonstrated?
  • If you’re a developer, what languages do you know/ what development environments/tools do you work with?
  • If applicable, which metadata standards are you familiar with?
  • If you run a repository or service that you’d like involved in the event can you provide us with some details about it (e.g. OAI-PMH base url / api functionality / feeds)?

Whether attending or not if you have any ideas of development challenges which you’d like to work on or see further specified at the event let us know (comment, email, or add them to the wiki).

Overview paper: Technology and descriptive choices in UKOER

Posted on by

Technology and descriptive choices in the JISC and HEA Open Educational Resources programme.

A position paper for the ADL Learning Content Registries and Repositories Summit by R. John Robertson, Lorna Campbell, Phil Barker

Theme: ‘State of the practice in learning content repositories’ and ‘Systemic Initiatives’  License: CC: BY

JISC and the Higher Education Academy are collaborating on the Open Educational Resources Programme. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has provided an initial £5.7 million of funding for 29 pilot projects, plus associated support activities, (April 2009 to March 2010) which will explore how to expand the open availability and use of free, high quality online educational resources. (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/oer).

CETIS (the Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards), a JISC innovation support centre, is providing strategic and technical support for UKOER at both programme and project level. Technical guidance and synthesis is disseminated primarily through the CETIS blogs which are aggregated onto the CETIS website (http://www.cetis.org.uk/).

A different approach

Unlike many previous development programmes, UKOER has not specified a particular technical architecture or mandated a specific approach to metadata and resource description, beyond the requirement that a few key pieces of information are recorded in some way.

The required information is:

  • Programme tag
  • Title
  • Author / owner / contributor
  • Date
  • URL
  • Technical info – file format, name & size.

Some additional information has also been recommended:

  • Language
  • Subject classifications
  • Keywords
  • Tags
  • Comments
  • Descriptions

(http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/02/03/oer-programme-technical-requirements/)

It is still too early to present a synthesis of how this information has been recorded but it is possible to provide an overview of the platforms, tools, metadata standards and packaging formats that projects have adopted.

Packaging formats in use

Packaging formats in use

Communication protocols in use

Communication protocols in use

Descriptive metadata standards

Descriptive metadata standards

Types of tools used to manage OERs

Types of tools used to manage OERs

Details of the types of tools in use in UKOER

Details of the types of tools in use in UKOER

Notes

  • projects may occur more than once in any given graph.
  • the graphs record the number of platforms that support a given format, protocol or standard (rather than use per se)
  • the recorded use of Zip is probably unrepresentative

Reflections

  1. At this stage CETIS technical synthesis of UKOER is still very much a work in progress but some preliminary trends are emerging:
  2. Unsurprisingly projects have gravitated to technologies they are familiar with and already had in place.
  3. Projects have used a mixture of elearning platforms, repositories, and innovative approaches
  4. The standards used are often embedded in applications and their use is dependant on the application chosen.
  5. The feasibility of aggregating distributed heterogeneous resource descriptions is still unproven.
  6. The pilot programme points to ways forward to use both web2 applications and digital repositories and to exchange information between them.
  7. Projects have chosen multiple platforms to support different functions such as preservation, streaming and dissemination, marketing and advocacy.
  8. Projects’ technical choices primarily reflect resource management and distribution requirements – as opposed to course delivery requirements.

Questions for discussion

  1. How do these figures fit with your expectations of approaches to sharing learning content?
  2. Can the applications you are using interact with multiple different platforms and applications for different purposes?
  3. If relevant, can your content move between different types of platforms? Can your metadata?

A fuller version of this position paper will be presented at the OCWC Conference in May 2010.

The use of Content Packaging and Learning Object creation tools in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

Although it is possible to create learning objects or content packages within virtual learning environments (from which it may be possible to export them) there are also a number of content packaging or Learning Object creation tools which have been used in the UKOER programme.

As the discussion around the use of Content Packaging noted ( http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2010/03/08/the-use-of-ims-cp-in-the-ukoer-programme/ and http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/) the perceived usability of available tools may influence the choice of packaging standard (whether the tools listed produce IMS CP, ADL SCORM, both, or something else is not noted).

Authorware

(http://www.adobe.com/products/authorware/)
In use by:

  • C-Change

Learning Object Creator

(http://www.llas.ac.uk/projects/2770)
In use by:

  • Humbox

Glomaker

(http://www.glomaker.org/)
In use by:

  • Evolution
  • Unicycle

Reload

(http://www.reload.ac.uk/)
In use by:

  • Simulation OER

eXe

(http://exelearning.org/wiki)
In use by:

  • Berlin
  • Evolution
  • Centre for Bioscience OER
    • “ Using eXe, in part as they had significant issues with using RELOAD and in part as eXe is JorumOpen’s preferred tool”

QuestionMark

(http://www.questionmark.com/us/index.aspx)

In use by:

  • brOME OERP
    • exporting materials from QuestionMark as QTI items to make more open
  • Centre for Bioscience OER

Xerte

(http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/xerte/)
In use by:

  • Berlin
  • C-Change
  • C-SAP OER – one mini project used Xerte to transform PPTs into Learning Objects

The use of ADL SCORM in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

“The Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) integrates a set of related technical standards, specifications, and guidelines designed to meet SCORM’s high-level requirements—accessible, interoperable, durable, and reusable content and systems. SCORM content can be delivered to your learners via any SCORM-compliant Learning Management System (LMS) using the same version of SCORM.” (http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/default.aspx )

In the context of the OER programme SCORM has mostly been interacted with as  a profile of IMS CP (though it utilises and profiles other standards as well).

SCORM is supported by:

  • Unicycle
  • OCEP
  • BERLiN
  • mmtv (under consideration)
  • Evolution
  • OLE Dutch History
  • FETLAR

comparing this to the list of those using IMS CP (link); those using SCORM and not using Content Packaging are:

  • OCEP
  • BERLiN
  • Evolution
  • mmtv

Support for SCORM is an out of the box function for

  • OCEP
  • BERLiN
  • Unicycle
  • Evolution

it may also be for the Moodle users (I’m not sure):

  • OLE Dutch HIstory
  • FETLAR

I’m not (yet) sure if mmtv decided to pursue the creation of SCORM packages, and am not clear, at this stage, if anyone is actively using SCORM or if projects are only supporting it.

Use of web publishing tools in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

Another approach taken in UKOER for the use management and sharing of OER management has been to use mainstream web publishing tools such as WordPress, Content Management Systems, and ‘simple’ websites (‘simple’ being a website created and managed without using a CMS ). One of the challenges this approach faces is that such tools are often not designed to export resources and a number of the projects have had some challenges when considering how to represent their OER(s) within JorumOpen.

Drupal

  • TRUE
  • OpenSpace
    • OpenSpace created a virtual learning studio for collaborative creative script writing and storyboarding
    • Explored the integration of Kaltura with Drupal
    • the OER is not only the environment but also a example of it’s use (using a example (real) course with student work)
  • Phorus

Plone

  • OTTER
    • OTTER have had problems exporting metadata they had created within Plone

Websites

  • numbat
    • XHTML and PHP based search

WordPress

It is worth noting in passing that many projects have extensively used blogs throughout the programme for communication, discussion and dissemination. This has provided a valuable way to engage and stay up to date with projects but that usage is a different topic entirely.

  • ChemistryFM
    • WordPress used as the primary ‘repository’ for content and publishing platform. Courses broken down into into one sub-topic per post comprising of embedded videos and related supporting resources.
    • The posts are tagged with the appropriate course code – this allows the courses to be put together through the blog interface.
    • can export resources via OAI-ORE for import to other repositories
  • C-Change
    • is investigating the use of wordpress as a possible local publishing tool for their members of their consortium who need (especially in the longer term) a way to publish OERs.

The use of VLEs in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

Within the UKOER programme there has been some use of virtual learning environments or related classroom or collaboration tools in the management and distribution of OERs (see also the list of learning object/ content-packaging creation tools in use ).

Wimba

http://www.wimba.com/

  • Evolution

Blackboard

http://www.blackboard.com/

  • OpenStaffs
    • Trying to decouple storage and use of educational materials. Moving resources/ course materials out of BlackBoard into Hive. Then creating references to them within BlackBoard. This allows the resources to be more open and accessible (and uses a resource management tool to manage and store (and preserve?) the resources rather than relying on the resource management capabilities of the VLE) )

Moodle

http://moodle.org/

  • Fetlar
    • used by project to coordinate and manage gathering of resources and as a platform for sharing them.
  • OLE Dutch History
    • direct use in teaching as well as managing resources; (afaik) used for www.dutch.ac.uk which offers access to a number of free taster courses

Custom ‘repository’ developments in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

One interesting development in the UKOER programme has been how many projects have chosen to build their own repository/database to manage their content in some form. Normally the phrase ‘we’ve built our own repository’ makes me worry in the same that ‘we’re developing our own standard’ or ‘our own controlled vocabulary’ does. However, these projects have had a wide variety of good reasons for doing so – all of which bear closer examination. Their approach is a reminder that there are circumstances under which ‘build your own’ is both necessary and a good idea. Some projects also make a case for lightweight and disposable approaches.

All the custom developments have used MySQL and all of those taking this option have been subject strand projects.

  • CORE Materials
    • they have built a database for the central management of resources prior to uploading to web 2.0 sites; their own solution was required to support interaction with the APIs of web 2.0 tools.
  • Medev OOER
    • they have built a database as a staging ground for preparing OERs – JorumOpen is their primary deposit. They are also considering a local repository in the longer term.
    • MySQL was chosen to be able to interact with Subject Centre website.
    • They are also looking at web2.0 api interoperability
  • Open Educational Repository in Support of Computer Science
    • built a lightweight disposable solution as management and publishing tool and staging ground for Jorum deposit
    • Jorum as the primary repository and copy of record/ preservation copy.
  • Phorus
    • primary cataloguing of OERs is into Intute which is then harvested via OAI-PMH into their local database
    • they then aim to harvest resources into JORUM
    • they may also move resources to host institution’s (Fedora) repository
  • Simulation OER
    • developed local repository both as continuation of earlier work and as available repository options did not meet the key requirement of being able to preview simulations.

Use of repository software in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

In the UKOER programme a number of projects have chosen to use repository software to manage their educational materials. Such software may be commercial, open source, or hosted (often using open source). Alongside research information systems, repositories occupy an increasingly well established position in institutional infrastructure for managing and sharing research materials (including theses, preprints, and metadata about articles). Consequently for many institutions they offer a natural choice to manage and share OERs.

When I’m aware of a repository holding research content as well as OERs I’ve noted this: educational materials only or mixed materials.

Fedora

http://www.fedora-commons.org/

  • Phorus
    • may harvest their MySQL based solution into their host institution’s repository (outwith project- presumably mixed materials).
  • Skills for Scientists
    • will move all resources into host institutional repository for preservation/ long term access.
    • not all content suitable for Jorum e.g. Scottish ~CC licensed stuff. (mixed materials)

Intralibrary

http://www.intrallect.com/index.php/intrallect/products

  • Unicycle
    • mixed materials

Equella

http://www.thelearningedge.com.au/products.php

  • Berlin
    • educational materials only
    • OpenCourseWare branded
  • OCEP
    • mixed materials

Harvest Road Hive

http://www.giuntilabs.com/HarvestRoad_Hive/index.php

  • OpenStaffs
    • unknown  from context probably educational materials only

ePrints

http://www.eprints.org/

  • ADM OER partner
    • unknown collection composition
  • HumBox
    • educational  materials only
  • ChemistryFM
    • will be using institutional ePrints as preservation store
    • mixed materials

DSpace

http://www.dspace.org/

  • Open Exeter
    • developed support for Content Packages and a LOM mapping
    • educational materials
  • C-Change
    • local DSpace repository was considered but rejected in favour of Jorum only approach (counter-use)

Note:
I’ll be blogging shortly about the other approaches taken for managing and sharing OERs, I’ll comment on the patterns at that point – but feel free to add any suggestions or comments about repositories here.

The use of OAI-PMH and OAI-ORE in the UKOER programme

Posted on by

OAI-PMH

The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH ; http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html ) “provides an application-independent interoperability framework based on metadata harvesting.” The protocol is widely used by repository software to make metadata about the resources they store available. In its use the repository acts as a data provider which is then able to be harvested by a data harvester. Two issues of note:

  1. although most repositories can function as data providers the data harvesting aspect of the protocol often requires separate software and is much less widely implemented.
  2. OAI-PMH specifies a minimal base metadata set of OAI_DC (~ the simple DC element set) therefore any implementation of it should be able to provide this as a minimum. Other metadata standards such as DC Terms or IEEE LOM can also be made available for harvesting.

Although OAI-PMH is a well established standard which is widely used, at this point it’s use for open educational resources is somewhat limited. OAI-PMH is not currently in use by Jorum for metadata harvesting and, as far as I know, there are not many OAI-PMH based harvesters offering aggregated search services for educational materials (outside of those within particular closed/ or semi-closed communities). DiscoverEd from Creative Commons does offer an OAI-PMH based harvest but prefers RSS/Atom based approaches (Enhanced Search for Educational Resources – A Perspective and a Prototype from CCLearn (2009) http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/discovered-paper-17-july-2009.pdf , p12). UPDATE: Please see comment from Jenny Gray below.

OAI-PMH is being used or is supported by:

  • ChemistryFM (option once content is in backup ePrints repository)
  • Phorus
  • Unicycle
  • OCEP
  • Open Exeter
  • OpenStaffs
  • OERP (use unknown)
  • Humbox

OAI-PMH is in active use by (as opposed to out of the box support):

  • Phorus (harvesting catalogued resources from Intute.)
  • TRUE (using a Drupal plug in?)
  • ADM OER
  • ChemistryFM (option once content is in backup ePrints repository)

OAI-ORE

“Open Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange (OAI-ORE) defines standards for the description and exchange of aggregations of Web resources.” (http://www.openarchives.org/ore/)

As a standard for describing aggregated or compound resources ORE has the potential to be highly relevant to some types of education materials made up of distributed web resources; its use, however, with educational materials has thus far been somewhat limited. It has however been used as an exchange mechanism for moving repository contents from one system to another.

Projects using OAI-ORE:

  • ChemistryFM (export function from WordPress – will use to backup content to repository)
  • ADMOER (export function from ePrints)
  • HumBox (export function from ePrints)