Presenter and authors: Phil Barker, Lorna M. Campbell, Martin Hawksey, CETIS and Amber Thomas, University of Warwick.
Session: LT50, #abs50

A booksprint is a facilitated, highly structured intensive writing process.  This booksprint ran for two and a half days, involved four people and was facilitated by Adam Hyde.  The aim of the sprint was to produce a synthesis and summary of the technical outputs of the UKOER Programmes  Once a chapter is written it’s passed on to another author, not for editing but co-creation.  The initial author does not “own” the chapter.  During this sprint each chapter was re-written by three authors.  The team used Booki.cc open source authoring platform to facilitate the collaborative writing. Booki is much like other collaborative writing applications but incorporates additional tools for ebook creation.   By the end of the two and a half day sprint the team had written a 22,000 word book.  Some of the authors were concerned that the quality of the writing would be compromised but this does not seem to have been the case. Colleagues who have read and reviewed the book have all responded positively to it.

Booksprints are ideal for people who have a shared conception of a topic and want to present it together, or alternatively want to present different aspect of a topic.  The content has to be material that is already known to the authors. This is not unlike the situation lecturers are in when they are producing course materials.  Booksprints could be an excellent way to produce educational resources as it’s an inherently open approach to content production.  We talk a lot about sharing educational resources but we don’t talk nearly enough about sharing the effort of creating those resources.  In order to produce really high quality resources we need to share the task of content creation

Into the Wild – Technology for Open Educational Resources can be downloaded free from CETIS Publications.  A print on demand edition is available from Lulu.

For further information on booksprints, see booksprints.net

Libraries, OA research and OER: towards symbiosis?

Presenter: Nick Sheppard, Leeds Metropolitan University
Session: LT73, #abs73

Leeds Metropolitan University have established a blended repository to manage both their research and teaching and learning resources, including OERs. They have been involved in a number of JISC funded projects including the Unicycle UKOER project.  The blended repository was originally based on Intralibrary and they have now implemented Symplectic.  There has been considerable emphasis on developing research management workflows.

Open access to research is changing dramatically in light of Finch and role of institutional repositories and there are synergies with Creative Commons potentially being mandated by Research Councils UK.  Nick also referred to Lorcan Dempsey’s recent posts on “Inside Out” libraries, which focus on the changing role of institutional repositories and libraries.

Leeds Met have worked closely with Jorum and Nick said that he believed that the new Jorum API is a game changer which will allow them to close the institutional OER circle.

Why bother with open education?

Presenter and authors: Viv Rolfe & Mark Fowler, De Montfort University
Session: LT77, #abs77

De Montfort have undertake a huge body of OER work since 2009.  OER is incorporated into the institutional strategy for teaching an learning and OER is also is part of  the De Montfort PG cert course.

Despite this, when the team interviewed senior executives about OER, none could name any major institutional projects.  They saw the marketing potential of OER but didn’t appreciate the potential of OERs to enhance learning.  There is a distinct lack of buy in from senior staff and a lot of work is needed to change their mindsets.

Student researcher Libor Hurt undertook a student survey on attitudes to OER.  28% had heard of OERs. OERs are used to supplement lectures and for informal learning.  They are seen as being good for catching up with complex subjects but are less used to study for assessments. Students overwhelmingly share stuff with each other, usually through facebook and e-mail. This is naturally how students work now and could have a major impact on OER down the line.  Students also loved producing OERs, lab videos and quiz MCQs.  However while students are happy to share within the university, they are less happy about sharing their OERs with the public, or those that are not paying fees.  Institutional strategies need to be mindful of this and need to communicate that universities are not giving away whole courses, they are just sharing some of the best bits.  Only a few students cited plagiarism concerns as a reason not to share.  From a student perspective, there is a real tension between paying fees and sharing OERs

It doesn’t matter if everyone in the institution isn’t sharing, as long as there are enough to get momentum going.  However it is important to get senior managers on board, OERs need to be enshrined in institutional  policy.

Taking care of business: OER and the bottom line

Presenters and authors: By John Casey, University of the Arts, Jonathan Shaw & Shaun Hides Coventry School of Art and Design, Coventry University.
Session: LT112, #abs112

Talking about open in a closed education system is a lightening conductor for many thorny issues – power, control, ownership, identity, pedagogy, technical infrastructure, cultures, policy, strategy and business models.   The OER space is a very productive but scary space.

Media is about coproduction and teaching is itself a form of media production.  Coventry fell into open learning with the #Phonar and Creative Activism #creativact courses which opened up their classes.  Rather than having courses led by individuals, they now have teams of people all thinking and operating in different ways. Professional partners have also shown an interest in participating in these courses.   They are thinking about how they conceive the design process of teaching, and are working with students and professional partners to let content evolve.

OER is a political problem, you need to lobby senior management. OERs don’t just open up content, they change institutional practice.  There are many unintended consequences and we need to deal with new educational and economic models of co-production.

“Education technology and data need to work better together to fulfill their potential for students and teachers. Until now, tackling this problem has often been too expensive for states and districts, but inBloom is easing that burden and ushering in a new era of personalized learning.”

This initiative first came to my attention when Sheila circulated a TechCruch article earlier in the week. Normally any article that quotes both Jeb Bush and Rupert Murdoch would have me running for the hills but Sheila is made of sterner stuff and dug a bit deeper to find the inBloom Learning Standards Alignment whitepaper. And this is where things get interesting, because inBloom incorporates two core technologies that CETIS has had considerable involvement with over the last while, the Learning Registry and the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative, which Phil Barker has contributed to as co-author and Technical Working Group member.

I’m not going to attempt to summaries the entire technical architecture of inBloom, however the core components are:

• Data Store: Secure data management service that allows states and districts to bring together and manage student and school data and connect it to learning tools used in classrooms.
• APIs: Provide authorized applications and school data systems with access to the Data Store.
• Sandbox: A publicly-available testing version of the inBloom service where developers can test new applications with dummy data.
• inBloom Index: Provides valuable data about learning resources and learning objectives to inBloom-compatible applications.
• Optional Starter Apps: A handful of apps to get educators, content developers and system administrators started with inBloom, including a basic dashboard and data and content management tools.

Of the above components, it’s the inBloom index that is of most interest to me, as it appears to be a service built on top of a dedicated inBloom Learning Registry node, which in turn connects to the Learning Registry more widely as illustrated below.

inBloom Learning Resource Advertisement and Discovery

According to the Standards Alignment whitepaper, the inBloom index will work as follows (Apologies for long techy quote, it’s interesting, I promise you!):

The inBloom Index establishes a link between applications and learning resources by storing and cataloging resource descriptions, allowing the described resources to be located quickly by the users who seek them, based in part on the resources’ alignment with learning standards. (Note, in this context, learning standards refers to curriculum standards such as the Common Core.)

inBloom’s Learning Registry participant node listens to assertions published to the Learning Registry network, consolidating them in the inBloom Index for easy access by applications. The usefulness of the information collected depends upon content publishers, who must populate the Learning Registry with properly formatted and accurately “tagged” descriptions of their available resources. This information enables applications to discover the content most relevant to their users.

Content descriptions are introduced into the Learning Registry via “announcement” messages sent through a publishing node. Learning Registry nodes, including inBloom’s Learning Registry participant node, may keep the published learning resource descriptions in local data stores, for later recall. The registry will include metadata such as resource locations, LRMI-specified classification tags, and activity-related tags, as described in Section 3.1.

The inBloom Index has an API, called the Learning Object Dereferencing Service, which is used by inBloom technology-compatible applications to search for and retrieve learning object descriptions (of both objectives and resources). This interface provides a powerful vocabulary that supports expression of either precise or broad search parameters. It allows applications, and therefore users, to find resources that are most appropriate within a given context or expected usage.

inBloom’s Learning Registry participant node is peered with other Learning Registry nodes so that it can receive resource description publications, and filters out announcements received from the network that are not relevant.

In addition, it is expected that some inBloom technology-compatible applications, depending on their intended functionality, will contribute information to the Learning Registry network as a whole, and therefore indirectly feed useful data back into the inBloom Index. In this capacity, such applications would require the use of the Learning Registry participant node.

One reason that this is so interesting is that this is exactly the way that the Learning Registry was designed to work. It was always intended that the Learning Registry would provide a layer of “plumbing” to allow the data to flow, education providers would push any kind of data into the Learning Registry network and developers would create services built on top of it to process and expose the data in ways that are meaningful to their stakeholders. Phil and I have both written a number of blog posts on the potential of this approach for dealing with messy educational content data, but one of our reservations has been that this approach has never been tested at scale. If inBloom succeeds in implementing their proposed technical architecture it should address these reservations, however I can’t help noticing that, to some extent, this model is predicated on there being an existing network of Learning Registry nodes populated with a considerable volume of educational content data, and as far as I’m aware, that isn’t yet the case.

I’m also rather curious about the whitepaper’s assertion that:

“The usefulness of the information collected depends upon content publishers, who must populate the Learning Registry with properly formatted and accurately “tagged” descriptions of their available resources.”

While this is certainly true, it’s also rather contrary to one of the original goals of the Learning Registry, which was to be able to ingest data in any format, regardless of schema. Of course the result of this “anything goes” approach to data aggregation is that the bulk of the processing is pushed up to the services and applications layer. So any service built on top of the Learning Registry will have to do the bulk of the data processing to spit out meaningful information. The JLeRN Experiment at Mimas highlighted this as one of their concerns about the Learning Registry approach, so it’s interesting to note that inBloom appears to be pushing some of that processing, not down to the node level, but out to the data providers. I can understand why they are doing this, but it potentially means that they will loose some of the flexibility that the Learning Registry was designed to accommodate.

Another interesting aspect of the inBloom implementation is that the more detailed technical architecture in the voluminous Developer Documentation indicates that at least one component of the Data Store, the Persistent Database, will be running on MongoDB, as opposed to CouchDB which is used by the Learning Registry. Both are schema free databases but tbh I don’t know how their functionality varies.

inBloom Technical Architecture

In terms of the metadata, inBloom appears to be mandating the adoption of LRMI as their primary metadata schema.

When scaling up teams and tools to tag or re-tag content for alignment to the Common Core, state and local education agencies should require that LRMI-compatible tagging tools and structures be used, to ensure compatibility with the data and applications made available through the inBloom technology.

A profile of the Learning Registry paradata specification will also be adopted but as far as I can make out this has not yet been developed.

It is important to note that while the Paradata Specification provides a framework for expressing usage information, it may not specify a standardized set of actors or verbs, or inBloom.org may produce a set that falls short of enabling inBloom’s most compelling use cases. inBloom will produce guidelines for expression of additional properties, or tags, which fulfill its users’ needs, and will specify how such metadata and paradata will conform to the LRMI and Learning Registry standards, as well as to other relevant or necessary content description standards.

All very interesting. I suspect with the volume of Gates and Carnegie funding backing inBloom, we’ll be hearing a lot more about this development and, although it may have no direct impact to the UK F//HE sector, it is going to be very interesting to see whether the technologies inBloom adopts, and the Learning Registry in particular, can really work at scale.

PS I haven’t had a look at the parts of the inBloom spec that cover assessment but Wilbert has noted that it seems to be “a straight competitor to the Assessment Interoperability Framework that the Obama administration Race To The Top projects are supposed to be building now…”

Open access in this instance was taken to refer to open access repositories of peer-reviewed papers and other scholarly works and associated open access policies and agendas. There was general agreement that open access and open education proponents should work together but also recognition that it was important to be aware of different agendas, workflows, technical requirements, etc. Suzanne Hardy of the University of Newcastle added that it was equally important to take heed of open research data too.

Although the group acknowledged that open access still faced considerable challenges, there was a general consensus that it was more mature, both in terms of longevity and uptake, and that it was embedded more widely in institutions. Amongst other factors, the relative success of open access was attributed to the fact that most universities already had policies and repositories for publishing and managing scholarly outputs, while few had comparable strategies for managing teaching and learning materials. Phil Barker added that research outputs were always intended for publication whereas teaching and learning materials were generally kept within the institution. Nick Sheppard of Leeds Met also pointed out that most institutional repositories could not handle teaching and learning resources and research data without significant modification. This led to the suggestion that while institutional repositories fit the culture of scholarly works and open access well, research data and OERs are much harder to manage and share.

In terms of uptake and maturity, although there was general agreement that open access was some way ahead of open education, it appears that open data is catching up fast due to institutional drivers such as the REF, high level policy support and initiatives such as opendata.gov. Funding council mandates were also recognised as being an important driver in this regard.

Different interpretations of the term ‘open” were discussed as the open in open access and open education were felt to be quite different. The distinction between gratis and libre was felt to be useful, though it is important to recognise more subtle variations of open.

There was some consensus that teaching and learning resources tend to be regarded as being of lesser importance to institutions than scholarly works and research data and that this was reflected in policy developments, staff appointments and promotion criteria. Furthermore, until impact measures, funding and business models change this is likely to remain the case. Open access and open education both reflect institutional culture but they are separate processes and this separation reflects university polices, priorities and funding streams.

The group also felt that different communities had emerged around open access and open education, with open access mainly being the concern of librarians and open education the domain of eLearning staff. Phil refined this distinction by suggesting that open access is driven by researchers but managed by librarians. However Nick Sheppard of Leeds Met suggested that the zeitgeist was changing and that open access, open education and open research data are starting to converge.

In response to the question “what open education could learn form open access?” one lesson may be that top down policy can help. Although open education processes are more complex and diverse than open access, the success of open access could aid open education.

Pat wrapped up the session by asking where next for open education? What do we do? Lis Parcell of RSC Wales cautioned against open education becoming the domain of “experts” and emphasised the importance of enabling new audiences to join the open debate, by using plain language where possible, meeting people where they are and providing routes to help them get a step on the ladder. There was also some appetite for open hackdays and codebashes that would bring teachers, researchers and developers together to build OA/OER mashups. Nick put forward the following usecase:

“I want to read a research paper, text mined & processed, AI takes me to relevant OER to consolidate learning!”

Finally everyone agreed that it’s important to keep talking, to keep open education on the agenda and try to transform open practice into open policy.

So there you have it! A brief summary of a wide-ranging debate conducted using only 140 characters! Who says you can’t have a proper conversation on twitter?! If you’re interested in reading the full transcript of the discussion, Martin Hawksey has helpfully set up a TAGS Viewer archive of the #chatopen here.

If you want to follow up any of the points or opinions raised here than feel free to comment below or send a mail to oer-discuss@jiscmail.ac.uk

Many thanks once again to Pat Lockley for setting up the discussion and to all those who participated.

Encouraged by recent initiatives promoting the release of openly licensed educational resources there have been considerable developments in the innovative use of repositories, content management systems and web based tools to manage and share materials for teaching and learning. This event will bring together developers and implementers of open repositories, content management systems and other tools to present and discuss recent updates to their systems and their application to learning resources.

The speakers lined up for this event will cover a diverse range of topics that relate to “open systems”. These include open source repository system software, repositories of openly licensed content, open access repositories, open standards and open APIs.

Confirmed speakers include:

• Patrick Mc Sweeney, University of Southampton, talking about “Community Engagement in Teaching and Learning Repositories: ePrints, HumBox and OER”.
• John Casey, University of the Arts, presenting the ALTO OER Ecosystem.
• Dan Rehak of ADL, outlining progress on the US Learning Registry initiative.
• Terry McAndrew, University of Leeds, “Getting Bioscience Open Educational resources into ‘Academic Orbit’. Tales from the OeRBITAL launchpad”.
• Charles Duncan, Intrallect Ltd, will discuss the development of an item bank repository.

More speakers are still being confirmed so keep an eye on the agenda for updates.

Both the Repository Fringe and the CETIS workshop are free to attend and you can register for either or both events via Eventbrite here.

Who is the OER Technical Interest Group for?

Anyone with an interest in technical issues relating to open educational resources and the wider areas of open education and educational resource management in general. Participation is not restricted to JISC HEA OER Programme projects, we would welcome and encourage participation from outwith the UK and from across the educational sector including schools, colleges, work based learning, life long learning, etc.

How do I participate in the OER Technical Interest Group?
To join the group just add a comment below to identify yourself, sign up for oer-discuss@jiscmail.com and look out for blog posts and tweets tagged #oertig

Rather than create a new mailing list, the OER Technical Interest Group will initially use the recently launched JISC oer-discuss list. An additional technical list will be established at a later date if necessary.

What will the OER Technical Interest Group do?

• Together with UKOLN’s DevCSI initiative the group will run an OER Hackday on the 31st March / 1st April 2011 at Manchester Conference Centre. For further information and to sign up for this event visit http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/events/devcsi/oer_hackdays/
• Provide a forum for the forthcoming JISC CETIS OER Mini Projects. JISC and CETIS intend to fund a series of OER Mini Projects in 2011 to explore a range of specific technical issues already surfaced by the JISC / HEA OER Programmes and recent CETIS events including #cetisrow and #cetiswmd. All participants will be eligible to apply for Mini Projects.
• Engage with and disseminate initiatives and activities outwith the UK F/HE sector including Creative Commons, OCWC and the US Learning Registry.
• Run a series of public events over the course of 2011 building on past CETIS events such as #cetisrow and #cetiswmd.
• Provide a forum to raise and discuss technical issues.

What kind of technical issues will the OER Technical Interest Group explore?

The group hopes to explore a wide range of technical issues including but not restricted to:

• Feed deposit
• Web search log analysis
• RSS end point registries
• Use of open source repositories for managing educational resources.
• Tracking open educational resources.
• License encoding.
• Self description and embedded metadata.

Further information about CETIS OER Technical Interest Group projects and activities will be posted on the CETIS blogs and circulated through the usual channels. If you are interested in participating please add your name below along with any comments or issues you would like to see the group explore. Thanks,

• Building collections of OERs.
• Drawing together information about learning resources
• Building rich descriptions from disparate sources of information

We’ve got an eclectic bunch of contributors lined up including David Kay, Sero; Vic Lyte, MIMAS; James Burke, deBurca; Chris Taylor, oErbital; Rob Pearce, Engineering a Lo-Carbon Future; Pierre Far, OCW Search; Pat Lockley, Xpert and some bloke called Phil Barker. Our contributors will be presenting and leading short discussions on a diverse range of topics including cross-silo semantic search opportunities, using mainstream and niche search engines to discover OERs and automatic selection of resources for a UKOER collection.

We’ve also been promised the world premiere of the long awaited dogme masterpiece The Plight of Metadata by acclaimed repository manager and film maker Pat Lockley. Mr Lockley assures us that the film will be “awesome, despite the limited CGI budget.”

So who should attend this Locate, Collate and Aggregate extravaganza? Anyone interested in open content, innovative use and management of teaching and learning resources, techies, geeks, rss wranglers, data miners and even the odd repository manager.

And what do we want? We want ideas! Lots of them! We want ideas, comments and input to other peoples ideas. We’re also looking for ideas for JISC CETIS technical mini-projects we can potentially take forward to run in parallel with the OER 2 Programme.

We’re not quite sure what the outputs of this session will be but we’re aiming to go beyond the boundaries of JISC programmes and domain focussed initiatives and we’re hoping for cross pollination and propagation of innovation throughout the nation.

I helped to facilitate the breakout group that focused on what we might be able to achieve by looking at existing metadata collections. Here’s an outline of the activity what we discussed.

Textual Analysis of Metadata Records

A large number of existing collections of metadata records were identified by participants including NDLR, JorumOpen, OU openlearn, US data.gov collections, all of which could be analysed to ascertain which fields are used most widely and how they are described. Clearly this metadata exists in a wide range of heterogeneous formats so the task is not as simple as comparing like with like. The “traditional” way to compare different metadata schema and records is through the use of cross-walks. However developing cross walks is a non-trivial task that in itself requires considerable time and resource.

An alternative approach was put forward by ADL’s Dan Rehak who suggested treating the metadata collections as text, stripping out fields and formatting and running the raw data through a semantic analysis tool such as Open Calais. Open Calais uses natural language processing, machine learning and other methods to analyse documents and find the entities within them. Calais claim to go “well beyond classic entity identification and return the facts and events hidden within your text as well.”

Applying data mining and semantic analysis techniques to a large corpus of educational metadata records would be an interesting exercise in itself but until we attempt such an analysis it’s hard to speculate what it might be possible to achieve with the output data. It would certainly be valuable to compare frequently occurring terms and relationships with an analysis of search web logs to see if the metadata records are actually describing the characteristics that users are searching for.

There was general agreement amongst participants that this would be an interesting and innovative project. Participants felt it would be advisable to start small with a comparison of two or three metadata collections, possibly those of JorumOpen, Xpert and the OU Openlearn before taking this forward further.

One thing I am slightly unsure about regarding this method is that Open Calais identifies the relationship between words but once we strip out the metadata encoding of our sample records this information will be lost. I don’t know enough about how these semantic analysis tools work to know whether this is a problem or if they are clever enough for this not to be an issue. I suppose the only way we’ll find out if the results are sensible or useful is to give it a try!

I’d also be very interested to hear how this approach compares with work being undertaken on a much larger scale by the Digging into Data Challenge projects and Mimas’ Bringing Meaning into Search initiative.

Other Activities

Phil has already summarised the other possible tasks and activities put forward by the other breakout groups which include:

• Establishing a common format for sharing search logs.
• Identify which fields are used on advanced forms and how many people use advanced search facilities.
• Analysis of the relative proportion of users who search and browse for resources and how many people click onwards from the initial resources.
• Further development of the search questionnaire used by David Davies. If sufficient responses could be gathered to the same questions this would facilitate meta analysis of the results.
• Work with communities around specific repositories and find out what works and doesn’t work across individual platforms and installations.
• Create a research question inventory on the CETIS wiki and invite people to put forward ideas.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions on any of the above ideas we’d love to hear from you!

Tony also pointed out that most document stores have a structure comprised of how documents relate to each other, but we are not good at making use of that structure. He then demonstrated how Gephi can be used to visualise structures and data clusters across multiple data stores. This presents new ways of navigating the content and can be used to provide topic or facet based browsing on the cheap. Earlier this week Tony demonstrated exactly this kind of data visualisation by using Gephi, yahoo pipes and google custom search to analyse altc-2010 twitter streams.

Tony concluded by reinforcing the importance of Ranganathan’s five laws of library science:

• First law: Books are for use
• Second Law: Every reader his or her book
• Third Law: Every book its reader
• Fourth Law: Save the time of the reader
• Fifth Law: The library is a growing organism

I am quite sure that I was the only person in the audience that had never come across these laws before but it seems they could apply equally usefully to educational resources, open or otherwise.

Herbert Van de Sompel presented another new and interesting way to access data online with Memento: Timetravel for the Web. Resources on the web change continually over time and Memento uses the http protocol to navigate these resources through time by linking current resources and archived resources. Memento used a “timegate” to redirect uri’s to a time specific version of a web page. The Memento tool suite includes the MementoFox plug-in that allows you to set a datetime to navigate the Web with. For MediaWiki servers there is the Memento plug-in that supports responding to datetime content negotiation requests issued by clients and for Wayback Archives a plugin that adds Memento Timegate and TimeBundle support. I’m a big fan of the internet archives and Memento looks like it could be an invaluable tool for browsing old web resources. Before Herbert had finished his presentation a large number of Fringe delegates had installed the MementoFox plug in and were enthusiastically browsing back backwards and forwards^* in time. This despite that fact that, as Herbert informed us, the first journal paper on Memento had been rejected with the comment along the lines of “who would be interested in looking at old websites”

Time travel of a different kind was in evidence during a round table discussion on teaching and learning resources which spiralled back in time into “what’s the definition of a learning object” territory. It became apparent that learning objects were being conflated with the specific standards often used to described and package them, specifically IEEE LOM and IMS Content Packaging. Open educational resources were put forward as a more useful and viable alternative to learning objects. I’m inclined to think that both learning objects and open educational resources can take any form and that the main distinction between the two is the presence of an open license for the latter. However the round table did give us an opportunity to talk to Patrick Sweeney of the University of Southampton about their repository usage stats which could potentially reveal some very useful information about how users search for teaching and learning resources. This is exactly the kind of data we hope to explore at the forthcoming CETIS What metadata is really useful? or CETISWMD event in October.

We also had the opportunity for another interesting conversation with Herbert Van de Sompel regarding the use of OAI ORE to aggregate open educational resources. This is something I’ve been curious about for a while, as there has been little exploration of the use of ORE in the context of educational materials. It seems to me that the resources produced by the JISC HEA OER Programmes, which are scattered all over the web and accompanied by highly variable metadata would provide an interesting usecase for OAI ORE. Herbert was able to point us towards one promising example of OAI ORE implementation in an educational context. Unlocking the Archive is a project based at the Jewish Women’s Archive which has developed an OAI-ORE presentation tool. As far as I can gather the aim of the project as to produce a powerpoint like web based tool which will allow users to aggregate any kind of content housed by the archive and view it using any standard web browser. The open source code developed by the project is available from drupal.org. We haven’t had an opportunity to investigate this project further but it certainly sounds like it’s worthy of further exploration in the context of the new OER2 Programme.

Of course the real high point of the entire two day event was Phil Baker’s pecha kucha (20 slides, 20 seconds per slide) presentation “An open and closed case for educational resources.” I may be biased, but I thought it was an excellent presentation and I was astonished that Phil could talk that fast! You can enjoy a video of the fast version of Phil’s session here and a rather more leisurely write up of the same on his blog.

All in all I found RepoFringe10 a very interesting and thought provoking event. I went to Repository Fringe last year and came away rather frustrated as I found that the event was trying so hard not to be a conference that the format actually got in the way of what could have been an opportunity for really interesting discussion. Not so this year, the event had a good balance of presentations, roundtable discussions, some very slick pecha kucha sessions and there was plenty of opportunity for networking and discussion. Well done guys!

* Okay you can’t really browse forward in time, I made that bit up

Between 2002 and 2010 the UK Joint information Systems Committee (JISC)¹ funded a wide range of development programmes with the aim of improving access within the UK Further and Higher Education (F/HE) sector to content produced by F/HE institutions and to establish policies and technical infrastructure to facilitate its discovery and use. The Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS)² is a JISC innovation support centre that provides technical and strategic support and guidance to the JISC development programmes and F/HE sector. CETIS contributed to scoping the technical requirements of the programmes summarised here.

Programmes such as Exchange for Leaning (X4L, 2002 – 2006)³ focused on the creation of reusable learning resources and tools to facilitate their production and management while Re-purposing and Re-use of Digital University-level Content⁴ (RePRODUCE, 2008 – 2009) aimed to encourage the re-use of high quality externally produced materials and to facilitate the transfer of learning content between institutions. At the same time the Digital Repositories⁵ (2005 – 2007) and Repositories Preservation Programmes⁶ (2006 – 2009) focused on establishing technical infrastructure within institutions and across the sector.

These programmes were informed by a strategic and technical vision which was expressed through initiatives including the e-Learning Framework⁷, the e-Framework⁸, the Information Environment Technical Architecture⁹ and the Digital Repositories Roadmap¹⁰. The IE Architecture for example sought to “specify a set of standards and protocols intended to support the development and delivery of an integrated set of networked services that allowed the end-user to discover, access, use and publish digital and physical resources as part of their learning and research activities.”

These programmes and initiatives have met with varying degrees of success across the different sectors of the UK F/HE community. The rapid growth in the number of open access institutional repositories of scholarly works including both journal papers and e-theses may be attributed directly to the impact of JISC funding and policy. The number of open access institutional repositories has approximately doubled since 2007 to 172¹¹ currently . Arguably there has been less success supporting and facilitating access to teaching and learning materials. Although the number of repositories of teaching and learning materials is growing slowly, few institutions have policies for managing these resources. Indeed one of the final conclusions of the Repositories and Preservation Programme Advisory Group, which advised the JISC repositories programmes, was that teaching and learning resources have not been served well by the debate about institutional repositories seeking to cover both open access to research outputs and management of teaching and learning materials as the issues relating to their use and management are fundamentally different¹². The late Rachel Heery also commented that greater value may be derived from programmes that focus more on achieving strategic objectives (e.g. improving access to resources) and less on a specific technology to meet these objectives (e.g. repositories). In addition the findings of the RePRODUCE Programme¹³ suggested that projects had significantly underestimated the difficulty of finding high quality teaching and learning materials that were suitable for copyright clearance and reuse.

Rather than a radical shift in policy these conclusions should be regarded as reflecting a gradual development in policy, licensing and technology right across the web. This includes the advent of web 2.0, the appearance of media specific dissemination platforms such as slideshare, youtube, flickr, iTunesU, interaction through RESTful APIs, OpenID, OAuth and other web-wide technologies, increasing acceptance of Creative Commons licenses and the rise of the OER movement. As a result there has been a movement away from developing centralised education specific tools services and towards the integration of institutional systems with applications and services scattered across the web. Furthermore there has been growing awareness of the importance of the web itself as a technical architecture as opposed to a simple interface or delivery platform.

These developments are reflected in current JISC development programmes where the priority is less on using a particular technology (e.g. repositories) or implementing a particular standard but rather to get useful, useable content out to the UK F/HE community and beyond by what ever means possible. The JISC Higher Education Academy Open Educational Resources Pilot Programme¹⁴ (OER, 2009 – 2010) is a case in point. To illustrate how both strategic policy and technology have developed it is interesting to compare and contrast the 2002 X4L Programme and the current OER Pilot Programme

X4L Programme 2002 – 2006

The X4L programme aimed to explore the re-purposing of existing content suitable for use in learning. Part of this activity was to explore the process of integrating interoperable learning objects with VLEs. A small number of tools projects were funded to facilitate this task: an assessment management system (TOIA), a content packaging tool (Reload) and a learning object repository (Jorum). Projects were given a strong steer to use interoperability standards such as IMS QTI, IMS Content Packaging, ADL SCORM and IEEE LOM. A mandatory application profile of the IEEE LOM was developed for the programme and formal subject classification vocabularies identified including JACS and Dewey. Projects were strongly recommended to deposit their content in the Jorum repository and institutions were required to sign formal licence agreements before doing so. Access to content deposited content in Jorum was restricted to UK F/HE institutions only.

OER Pilot Programme 2009 – 2010

The aim of the OER Pilot Programme is to make a significant volume of existing teaching and learning resources freely available online and licensed in such a way to enable them to be reused worldwide. Projects may release any kind of content in any format and although projects are encouraged to use open standards where applicable proprietary formats are also acceptable. CETIS advised projects on the type of information they should record about their resources but not how to go about recording it. There is no programme specific metadata application profile and no formal metadata standard or vocabularies have been recommended. The only mandatory metadata that projects were directed to record was the programme tag #ukoer. Projects were given free rein to use any dissemination platform they chose provided that the content is freely available and under an open licence. In addition, projects must also represent their resources in JorumOpen either by linking or through direct deposit. All resources represented in JorumOpen are freely available worldwide and released under Creative Commons licences.

During the course of the OER Pilot Programme CETIS have interviewed all 29 projects to record their technical choices and the issues that have surfaced. This information has been recorded in the CETIS PROD¹⁵ system and has been synthesised in a series of blog posts¹⁶. CETIS is also undertaking additional exploratory work to investigate different methods of aggregating and tracking resources produced by the OER Programme. The contrast between the two programmes is marked and the success or otherwise of the technical approach adopted by the OER Pilot Programme remains to be seen. The programme concludes in April 2010 and a formal programme level synthesis and evaluation is already underway.

References
1. Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards, CETIS, http://www.cetis.org.uk
2. Exchange for Learning Programme, X4L, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/x4l.aspx
3. Re-purposing and Re-use of Digital University-level Content Programme, RePRODUCE, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningcapital/reproduce.aspx
4. Digital Repositories Programme, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/digitalrepositories2005.aspx
5. Repositories Preservation Programmes http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres.aspx
6. E-Learning Framework, http://www.elframework.org/
7. E-Framework, http://www.e-framework.org/
8. JISC Information Environment Technical Architecture http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/informationenvironment/iearchitecture.aspx
9. Digital Repositories Roadmap, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/themes/informationenvironment/reproadmaprev.aspx
10. The Directory of Open Access Repositories, OpenDOAR, http://www.opendoar.org/
11.Exclude Teaching and Learning Materials from the Open Access Repositories Debate. Discuss, http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/lmc/2008/10/27/exclude-teaching-and-learning-materials-from-the-open-access-repositories-debate-discuss/
12. RePRODUCE Programme Summary Report, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elreproduce/jisc_programme_summary_report_reproduce.doc
13. JISC Academy Open Educational Resources Pilot Progamme, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/oer.aspx
14. CETIS PROD, monitoring projects, software and standards, http://prod.cetis.org.uk/query.php?theme=UKOER
15. John’s JISC CETIS Blog, http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/category/ukoer/
16. OER Synthesis and Evaluation Project, http://www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/oer/

Phil Barker, Matt Jukes, Chris Awre and I composed the small group that discussed teaching and learning materials and these were our conclusions.

Constraints

Much of the discourse of the day did not sit comfortably with the teaching and learning domain. There was an implicit assumption that resources reside in repositories of some kind and are accompanied by quality-controlled metadata.

In reality teaching and learning materials are stored in many different places that can not be regarded as repositories “no matter how big the quotation marks”. These resources tend to be unmanaged and are not persistent.

Learning materials have relationships to many other entities e.g. the concept being learned, educational activities, course instance, individual people and social networks. These entities are poorly understood and modelled and are difficult to identify.

There is still a “craft” view of the process and practice of teaching and consequently there is some resistance to formalising the management of resources and activities.

There is no clearly identifiable lifecycle for teaching and learning materials and frequently no formal mechanism for their management.

Learning materials are “made public” but they are not “published” in the formal sense and metadata is often poor or non existent.

Use Cases

Composite objects – learning materials are frequently composite objects that may be ordered in one or more ways. Identifiers need to be able to identify the component parts, specify the order and potentially also to recompose and reorder them.

Open educational resources – once resources are released under an open license there are likely to be multiple different copies, formats and versions all over the place. How do you express relationship between these multiple entities?

Resource / course relationship – what is the relationship between learning materials and concepts such as educational activity or educational activity? It is notoriously difficult to assign an educational level to a learning resources but it is often much easier to assign an educational level to a course. Is it possible to extrapolate from the course to the resource?

Drivers

Institutions are beginning to recognise that learning materials are valuable for the core business of higher education, i.e. teaching and learning; and that it may be beneficial to manage them for quality and efficiency gains.

The OER movement may be a significant driver for futher work in this area.

What approaches are being used at present?

There is no clearly identifiable workflow behind the use of learning materials. The url of a learning resource tends to become its identifier and is dependant on where the resource is stored e.g. vle, repository, slideshare. Clearly however the url refers to a specific instantiation of a resource in a specific location.

There is very little in the way of established practice in terms of management and identification of teaching and learning materials. Everything in flux. In the terminology of the Repository Ecology report things are still a “mess.” A mess being:

“a complex issue that is not well formulated or defined”

Issues regarding sustainability and scalability

Do teaching and learning materials actually need to persist? There are usecases for persistence e.g. non-repudiation. Also teachers have to be confident that a resource will be there next time they need to use it.

Does it actually matter if resources are scattered all over the place with metadata that is poor to nonexistent?

And finally…
…if you know the answer to that last question please comment below!