Comments on: OER Programme Myths http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/ Cetis Blog Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:17:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.22 By: JISC/ Academy OER start up meeting « Li’s work blog http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-81 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:28:03 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-81 […] it was to develop a shared understanding of the purpose of the pilot programme and clarify some “myths” about the OERs projects. Following an introduction to the event by David Kernohan, Tish Roberts gave an overview of the […]

]]>
By: Leslie Fletcher http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-80 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:12:46 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-80 I don’t understand what point Rowin is making in her post at 2.58pm on 20 May (http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-1338). FETLAR, the maths subject project, is aiming to deposit assessment content and sees it as “just another kind of OER and not something that belongs in a separate box of its own.” This will be content which relies for its openness, sustainability, … on QTI2.1 extended to support the particular needs of mathematics; for more on this see http://mathassess.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

]]>
By: “Myths” about JISC’s OER Program « Open Education News http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-79 Sat, 23 May 2009 22:10:25 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-79 […] 23, 2009 · No Comments Lorna’s JISC CETIS blog has a new post addressing criticisms of JISC’s OER program. The “myths” addressed […]

]]>
By: Lorna http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-78 Fri, 22 May 2009 11:46:15 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-78 Regarding assessment content and QTI, at this stage we don’t really know exactly what kind of content the projects are going to produce. However if any projects do plan to release lots of assessment content then I would strongly recommend that they consider using IMS QTI.

]]>
By: David Kernohan http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-77 Fri, 22 May 2009 11:09:03 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-77 @Rowin Well CETIS are the ones who would be advising programmes how to package interactive and complex learning content… so it’s on a case by case basis. Sorry if that sounds vague and buck-push-y but I’m trying to keep things as fluid as possible given the pilot nature of projects and support.

]]>
By: rowin http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-76 Thu, 21 May 2009 14:01:04 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-76 Also, David’s comment on standards (‘we are mandating the use of suitable standards where these exist (eg IMS CC, SCORM…)’) made me curious – has anyone discussed QTI in relation to this? Given the uncertainty surrounding the specification at the moment, I’d be really interested in knowing what JISC’s position was on this.

]]>
By: rowin http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-75 Thu, 21 May 2009 13:58:16 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-75 Something I very much hope *won’t* be a myth:

Assessment content will be regarded as just another kind of OER and not something that belongs in a separate box of its own.

:)

]]>
By: Lorna http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-74 Thu, 21 May 2009 13:41:58 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-74 Good point David. For more on this particular myth see Metadata Guidelines for the OER Programme.

]]>
By: David Kernohan http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-73 Thu, 21 May 2009 09:38:24 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-73 Another myth…

JISC are not mandating the use of content packaging or other standards, or the use of a common metadata framework. Therefore JISC are no longer interested in standards or metadata

Several misconceptions here. We are mandating the use of suitable standards where these exist (eg IMS CC, SCORM…), and indeed, if we were only interested in the release of materials for online use then we would expect pretty much everything to be standards compliant. But we want to see the release of all kinds of content, for online learning and more traditional forms of learning. There would be little point in wrapping up a reading list or a presentation in IMS CP!

The metadata approach has surprised a few people – but reflecting on the real “openness” we are trying to achieve we felt that a hefty metadata requirement would serve to stifle the release of a lot of interesting materials and a lot of interesting ways. The pilot-y-ness of the programme means we can be innovative like this, after all people find stuff on the rest of the web all the without epic metadata – can we do it with a single tag, a title and contributor data? There are areas of our work were precise metadata specifications are essential, we felt that a more open approach would make it easier to release content, and easier to use a variety (institutional websites, institutional repositories, web 2.0, Jorum Open) of mechanisms to do so.

]]>
By: Terry McAndrew http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2009/05/20/oer-programme-myths/#comment-72 Wed, 20 May 2009 12:32:56 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/?p=155#comment-72 We are not monetarising content production but in many cases resources will need to be reworked in format and presentation to open them up for re-use. Academic staff are not all in the habit of planning to build resources for worldwide consumption – when time is tight especially. What we do hope to include in our achievements is a range of resources which can act as seeds i.e. illustrate the potential for an OER approach and change the culture so it plans, prepares and describes resources for re-use and repurposing. They have to be rich enough to include a range of components worth cataloguing separately to be independent LOs and this takes staff time. Bidding only for time only to sort out copyright issues may not produce an attractive and balanced range of resources which can be employed across disciplines and encourage an OER approach to achieve the aim to ‘change the culture’.

]]>