text:
|Hits: 91
Prepared by Gajaraj Dhanarajan, Wawasan Open University, Penang, Malaysia for ROER4D.
An overview about OER in Malaysia, also included some background of the higher educations in Malaysia, ICT in higher education, legal environment for OER, universities and institutions involved in OER movements, research and publications on OER.
Click here to download the report.
|Hits: 80
The OER Research Hub, based at the UK's Open University, is researching the global impact of open educational resources (OER) on learners and teachers and is focusing on India as a case study. They are using surveys to gather evidence about the use and impact of OER in India and would really value your participation in this research by completing one of the surveys below.
|Hits: 193
Posted 20 Jan 2015 by Don Watkins
I first met Stephen O'Connor, a fifth grade public school teacher at Wells Central School, at the New York State Association for Computers and Technology in Education Conference in 2007. I don't recall the exact subject of his presentation, but I came away from his presentation with some new information that helped me implement Moodle in my classroom. He pointed me in the direction of a good hosting company that allowed me to work on Moodle, Drupal, and Wordpress development, which I was most interested in at the time.
At another of his presentations, I came away with a wealth of information about licensing content and the differences between Copyright and Creative Commons. I've been following Steve on Twitter for a long time, and he continues to be a great source of learning about open educational resources.
Steve teaches at an elementary, public school on a tiny hamlet in the Adirondack region of New York state. He attended the University of Rochester as an undergraduate and majored in history and East Asian Studies. He later attended Nazareth College obtaining an M.S. in Education. His contribution to open source is in the area of open educational resources (OER).
"In the past, I have gotten paid to work around OER," O'Connor said. "A couple times I got work finding and curating OER centered around certain topics. Another time, I got funding to create an openly licensed P2PU class in multimedia."
Lately the majority of his work in open content has centered around EngageNY, where he's created math and English language arts modules for implementation in his fifth grade classroom.
"I make multimedia presentations to deliver the lessons, screencasts to support parents and students with homework, and a some other ancillary materials. To me, it just made sense to share freely, so I created ccss5.com as a platform for sharing these materials," he said. "While I have not been compensated for this work, I have gotten work as a consultant/presenter for a district trying to implement the EngageNY Math Modules. I hope to find more opportunities to do similar work in the future. I also hope that my body of work leads to funding opportunities so I can extend what I have done in fifth grade to other grade levels."
When I asked Steven why he worked in OER, he said, "I feel that an education is a basic human right; therefore, by creating educational resources and giving them away, you are removing an obstacle to attaining an education. I also feel that the textbook industry has not served us well with quality materials, and I feel they have exploited schools financially."
I asked Steven what it is about OER that invites his continued involvement. And, he says, "While I am sometimes disappointed by the lack of feedback that I receive, I know that hundreds of teachers are using my resources. That means my work benefits thousands of children." I asked him how he got interested in open educational content in the first place, and he responds:
"My interest in OER stemmed from my work with the open source social networking platform Elgg. I also benefitted from open licensed, server-based software such as WordPress and Joomla. K12 Handheld's owner, Karen Fasimpaur, brought OER to my attention, saying that she was dedicating her efforts in that area. Around the time I began conversing about OER with Karen, I started reading the work of Larry Lessig, one of the founders of Creative Commons. His advocacy for a culture of sharing struck a chord, especially because I benefited from openly licensed software. About the same time, I became familiar with the work of Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody. His writing solidified notions I already had about spending one's time creating, rather than consuming, content."
When asked what he sees as the greatest need in open content today he, he responds enthusiastically:
"A lot of OER has been disjointed, particularly in mathematics, a field that demands coherence. This has recently changed with New York State Education Department's bold entry into openly licensed curriculum with the EngageNY mathematics and English language arts modules. I think making and sharing derivative materials based upon the modules will result in open educational resources that will really be used. Many of those involved with OER get the sense that their resources are not being utilized. I think the modules have changed this, so this is a good area to direct resources."
He continues, "I was recently contacted by New York State Education Department regarding my work with the mathematics modules. In the course of the discussion, I was told that I was doing exactly what they hoped would be done with the modules, but I was the only one they knew who was doing it. I think those funding OER creation would be wise to harness the widespread use of the modules all around the country."
When I asked Steve how he licenses his content, he says, "Since most of my current work is making derivative materials from the EngageNY Modules and they are licensed CC BY-NC-SA, I must license anything I make from them the same way. I have come to prefer CC-BY myself."
Resource: https://opensource.com/education/15/1/interview-stephen-oconnor-ny-state-education-department
|Hits: 337
on JANUARY 15, 2015
Humans are fundamentally social. There are a number of ways we might attempt to prove this claim. We might argue that the highest compliment someone can be paid is to be called a "true friend." We might argue that the noblest of all emotions is love. We might argue that the single most important technological achievements in history are the creations of communications technologies such as speech, writing, printing, and the internet. Conversely, we might argue that society's most severe nonlethal punishment is "solitary confinement."
The power of each of these examples derives from relationships between people. You are a friend to someone else. You love someone else. You communicate with someone else. You are punished by being prevented from interacting with anyone else.
PBS summarizes simply, "All of us need other people in order to be well and thrive. We feel better just being around other people. And we need close relationships in order to be happy."
Our learning is also social. Michael Feldstein recently described findings of a Gallup poll on education and wellbeing:
So feeling like your professors actually care matters? Apparently it matters a lot. Who knew?
A number of learning theorists and pedagogues have written about the social nature of learning. Perhaps most famous among these is Vygotsky and his notion of the more capable peer who supports a learner as she grows within her continually expanding zone of proximal development. Without devolving into a full-on literature review, together with Vygotsky we should mention Leontev, Luria, and particularly Werstch. John Dewey and John Seely Brown are of particular note, along with Lave and Wenger. By even starting to make the list I leave out more people than I can possibly include. Suffice it to say, much has been written on the social nature of learning.
My eventual critiques of learning objects were inspired largely by these and other thinkers talking about the social nature of learning. For example, my 2003 critique of attempts at automating education via learning objects still applies to today's attempts to automate education via MOOCs and other means.
Beyond the seemingly endless proliferation of words by learning theorists and pedagogues lies empirical evidence. In his groundbreaking book Visible Learning, John Hattie provides a meta-analysis of over 800 meta-analyses, comparing the impacts on learning of 138 teacher, curriculum, school, and other influences as reported across thousands of empirical studies that met a quality threshold.
In what has to be my favorite Appendix ever Hattie lists these influences, rank ordered by the size of their impact on learning (with impact expressed in standardized effect sizes). He finds that one of the largest effects on learning, 11th of 138 overall, and the 3rd highest influence of teachers on learning, is the teacher-student relationship. He comments,
We could say more, but the point of a meta-meta-analysis is that Hattie's 0.72 effect size summarizes the empirical evidence for us. Human relationships matter in education. When teachers know and care about their students, it makes a big difference.
With the pile of philosophical, conceptual, and empirical evidence showing the social nature of learning and the importance of human relationships (particularly the relationship between teacher and student) in learning and wellbeing, why are we working so hard to automate away any opportunity for these relationships to exist?
Teachers and faculty certainly aren't demanding a future where teaching becomes a kind of solitary confinement attenuated only by a wispy virtual tether to their students. Students who learn less and are less happy when these relationships aren't there, aren't asking for it. Not even employers want this future, as they demonstrate by talking continuously about how important interpersonal and other social skills are in those they want to hire.
The only people who benefit from eliminating human relationships from learning are those who both (1) would benefit from "scaling" formal educational opportunities and (2) see teachers as a bottleneck in the scaling process. It's a terrible shame, because there absolutely must be ways to "scale" education that preserve the opportunity for genuine human relationships of care to develop between teachers and students. If ed tech advocates, software developers, researchers, and others were putting as much time and effort into finding processes and building tools that support the creation and nurturing of these relationships as they've spent trying to eliminate those relationships, I think we could solve the problem.
But wait, I can hear you're saying, isn't this blog supposed to be about open? What does all this touchy feely relationship stuff have to do with open? Glad you asked. I was just getting to that.
As I've said many times, education is sharing. If you haven't heard the refrain recently, you can listen to it again here:
While education is sharing, it's good to be clear about what education is not. Education is not authoring. Education is not publishing. That is to say, education is more than recording a video and posting it to YouTube, even though such a video might be useful in supporting someone's learning. (Learning is what a person does for themselves. Education is what someone else does to help you learn.)
If faculty aren't sharing what they know with students, they aren't educating. If they're not sharing feedback with students – both critical and encouraging – they aren't educating. And if they aren't sharing something of themselves with students, they aren't educating. And it's this last bit, the notion of faculty sharing something of themselves with students, that gets us into the realm of the kind of relationships that make an immediate impact on student learning and make a long-term impact on students' lives.
And herein lies, what is for me, a newly emerging connection to open. As I said above, the core ethic of open is sharing. But it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that all the work we do in "open" education is work directed toward figuring out how to share more completely and more effectively – figuring out how to be more generous, as I say in the video above. The open licenses that underpin so much of what we do in open education are nothing more than utilitarian legal machinery that makes it easy for us to share in a world of copyright run amok. While some people almost fetishize them, open licenses are nothing more than an instrumental means to the actual end of making sharing easier.
I'm still developing my own thinking around this, but I want to think out loud for a few paragraphs. The tiny constellation of potentially copyrightable works is not the whole universe of open – not by a long shot. The ethic of open applies to other areas of life as well. We can share encouragement, share acceptance, share care and concern and empathy. Just because we don't need to rely on licenses in order to share joys and sorrows doesn't mean that this kind of sharing is outside the bounds of being open. In fact, perhaps the degree to which we invite anyone and everyone into the circle of our care and concern is the degree to which we are true to the deeper ethic of open.
Sharing a digital resource – something which you can do automatically, at no cost to you, without paying any attention to it happening, and without suffering any loss of access to the resource you shared – is the simplest and easiest form of open. There may be an opportunity cost, but there's very little or no real cost. Openly licensing and sharing digital content is a form of being open that we definitely need to encourage and support, but surely placing an open license on a piece of digital content, like a photograph, is not the pinnacle of being open. It's the point of departure, not the destination.
Perhaps the deeper ethic of open has to do with more comprehensive sharing – a sharing that includes, in addition to digital resources, resources which are infinitely more dear and precious. Things like our attention, time, care, talents, and devotion. If that is true, then when understood in the context of open education, the deeper ethic of open also points directly toward human relationships.
…and that is the connection I want to make.
Both education and openness, in their deepest and truest senses, seem to converge on relationships of generosity and care between human beings. I think that's important. It has implications for the future of open education, which to be true to both "open" and "education" needs significantly more intellectual and financial investment in understanding how to enable and support the development of these relationships of generosity and care.
Now that's worth getting out of bed in the morning for.
Copyright: This material was created by David Wiley and published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution license at http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3732
|Hits: 411
Ebner, Martin & Schön, Sandra: Open Education Systems – the challenge of updating when republishing is allowed
Open Access and Open Educational Resources are important issues for the future of education even or especially in Higher Education. This contribution introduces a project on a textbook done collaboratively by more than 200 participants.
From a technical background the Open Journal Systems is used to assist and manage the whole scientific publishing process. Furthermore a plugin for the system has been developed to open the access to the content to any other third party application like mobile applications. In spite of a fully Open Education System numerous chapters appeared on different platforms because of the nature of openness and the possibility of republishing.
This research study aims to address the problem of unnecessary multiplication of learning objects. The report concluded that much more awareness is needed towards sustainability and reliability.
Click here for full report.
#oer #OJS #openjournalsystems
|Hits: 432
OPENPediatrics (OP), a free online education and best practice-sharing community for pediatric clinicians worldwide, has launched a new library of openly licensed medical animations and illustrations, making them available for non-commercial educational use.
Click at the image below to visit the multimedia library.
|Hits: 410
A FREE four-week long online workshop for anyone interested in open textbooks. This workshop includes BOTH asynchronous activities and synchronous webinars each week. This course will take about 4-5 hours each week to complete.
January 12 – February 6, 2015
The workshop is asynchronous so you can participate any time. We will schedule one synchronous session each week featuring a special guest. The time for each synchronous session will vary from week to week. However, these will be recorded so you can access them later.
These sessions will be facilitated by the B.C. Open Textbook Project team: Clint Lalonde, Amanda Coolidge and Lauri Aesoph
Who should participate?
If your answer is yes or maybe to one or more of these questions, then participate by registering below.
Sign up for the course. We'll be sending out more information to all course registrants about how the course works, including details about how to log in to the course, in the first week of January, 2015.
For more information
Find us on Twitter: @BCcampus and Facebook, #AdoptOTB.
A workshop poster (8.5″ x 11″, PDF format) available to download, print and share.
Be a part of our research project on open textbooks
Do Open Educational Resources make a difference in the classroom? An online survey developed by BCcampus and U.K.-based OER Research Hub is being used to collect data to quantify the efficacy of OER. Learn more.
Logo attribution: P2Pu logo used under a CC-BY-SA license
Source: http://ht.ly/GjFBY
|Hits: 331
Slides show about how museums and related cultural heritage institutions are using Creative Commons to:
(a) Share their digital collections
|Hits: 387
First published in The Souvenir, FICCI Higher Education Summit 2014
Viplav Baxi makes the case that MOOCs have arrived in India. Now is the time to reflect on what pitfalls we should avoid and how we can fully leverage them in the Indian context.
The past few years have seen the rapid growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). This emergence has been particularly interesting to follow in India, where we seem to have discovered online learning on a massive scale. Indians account for about 10% of the registrations in MOOCs from the top MOOC providers.
MOOCs actually originated out of a new theory of learning called Connectivism proposed by George Siemens in 2005. The first MOOC (the term itself was coined by Dave Cormier) was organized in 2008 by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. Hailed as a disruptive model of education, the earliest MOOCs (also called cMOOCs or Connectivist MOOCs) offered a whole new way of teaching and learning.
Much later, in 2011-12, top universities in the USA jumped on to the MOOC bandwagon, lending it worldwide credibility and fame. The reasons behind the quick adoption of these MOOCs was the fact that anyone could learn (or get certified), for free or a small fee, from some of the top universities and top professors in the world. Large investments by private capital and university foundations shaped popular perception about the revolutionary potential of these MOOCs. Also universities viewed them as extending the reach and brand of the University. Open Courseware had existed for a very long time, but the shape and form of these MOOCs was far more accessible and exciting.
MOOCs have now progressed from being higher education-only to school, teacher and vocational education. The top 3 MOOC providers now service about 20 million students worldwide, about 5 times the open and distance learning enrolments in India. MOOCs have also taken over imagination at policy levels, with the Indian Government proposing SWAYAM as the open MOOC platform for India.
However, there remain significant challenges with the MOOC model.
Firstly, the pedagogy behind these MOOCs needs a rethink. The type of MOOCs that have gained worldwide popularity since 2011, adopted the title "MOOC" but ignored the rich underlying Connectivist origins. They merely extended traditional online, instructivist Web Based Training (WBT) and Instructor Led Training (ILT) methods to a massive audience, earning them the term xMOOCs, the "x" standing for "eXtension".
WBTs and ILTs were designed as eLearning equivalents to reduce training delivery costs and standardize instruction for large scale corporate training. But nearly everyone realizes that this type of eLearning is not scalable because it is designed for learner stereotypes, does not account for real world diversity and in general, predates and ignores the entire social learning revolution.
Both for WBTs/ILTs and xMOOCs, the model is largely teacher (and/or instructional designer) led and content-driven. It not based upon socially negotiated & distributed learning, the hallmark of the Connectivist MOOCs. This is why it is perhaps more appropriate to call them XBTs (or "massive" extensions of WBTs and ILTs) rather than think of them as a variant of the original MOOC approach.
The XBTs augment the traditional systems, giving importance to institutional pedigree, clearly defined institutional structures & processes (such as courses, terms and exams) and certification mechanisms.
The Connectivist MOOCs are very open, emphasize sense-making, operate in a distributed fashion, legitimize learners at the periphery (legitimate peripheral participation or "lurking") and do not impose the strict conformance to traditional notions of course, exam and certification. For them, learning is the process of making connections and knowledge is the network, which means that the competency and capability to learn critically determines the learning itself. This is the central theme behind heutagogy – the study of self-determined learning – that, unlike pedagogy and andragogy, marks a significant move away from traditional teacher-centred learning.
It will be critical for MOOC providers to evaluate the Connectivist approach as we move ahead, if we are to build meaningful massive open online learning courses and platforms.
Secondly, engagement and retention are key aspects of the learning experience that the MOOCs, in general, have not been able to address effectively. The long tail of learning, which is that a really large number of learners end up not completing the MOOC or remain at low levels of engagement, is nothing new. It is just that the massive nature of MOOCs amplifies some of these known issues.
It is here that the MOOC providers need to spend a lot of time experimenting with techniques such as gamification, badges, adaptive learning and learning analytics. The Connectivist model relies on learners to build capability for their own learning, something that is the desired endgame for any educational system. By increasing learner capability to learn in the digital medium, cMOOCs can potentially flatten the long tail. The traditional XBT model can only reinforce and amplify it.
The third challenge is in establishing sustenance & growth models, whether MOOC providers are for-profit or not for-profit. So far, providers have looked at monetization/cost recovery through various methods such as charging institutions or teachers for MOOC development; charging potential employers; platform provision; training & support; charging students for blended (online plus offline) learning, mentoring/coaching, special finishing school programs and certification.
For example, Coursera now has about 10 mn students and is supposedly making USD 1 mn a month from its verified certificate courses that cost between USD 30 and USD 100. However, even though these models do not appear to have garnered explosive acceptance from a retail student perspective since they are not really integrated into formally recognized certifications, the hope seems to be to acquire large enough numbers to translate into sustainable and/or profitable ventures.
An interesting comparison for XBT providers are the formal open and distance learning systems, where regulated degrees & certificate programs drive enrolments and fees & endowments drive the income. The UK Open University in 2012-13, earned more than GBP 200 mn as fee income (about 60% of which were supported by student tuition loans) from over 200,000 students. The Indira Gandhi National Open University in India, has an annual enrolment of about 500,000 students (in 2012 annual enrolment was 465,000 students), but the fee per course would be a fraction of the fee charged by the UKOU. Of course, the XBT providers are looking at multiples of these figures as they go about targeting a global audience.
The fourth challenge lies with a weak private/non-profit investment climate for MOOCs in India. Significant public effort and money has and is being spent across various pioneering Government initiatives to build open education resources (OERs), MOOCs and MOOC platforms. These can be leveraged by anyone under a very permissive OER policy, which even allows commercial use. However, barely any private investment is flowing into leveraging these resources.
Innovations and investments are required in multiple areas such as awareness generation, access to technology and communications, capability development, content development (including multilingual), pedagogy, development/enhancement of MOOC platforms, collecting and managing learner progress and performance data to improve the learning experience, as well as areas like gamification, Virtual LABs and other forms of technology augmented learning. These innovations and investments should directly impact our education system in terms of improved access, improved learning outcomes and higher employability.
To summarize, MOOCs have arrived, but if we do not deal with these core challenges of MOOCs, we will end up having a dysfunctional system. To avoid later disappointment, stakeholders must reorganize and focus on how to avoid the pitfalls of the current wave of MOOCs.
Resource: http://learnos.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/moocs-have-arrivedwhat-next/
by Cikgu Brian
|Hits: 550
Below capture some presentation slides and keynote videos during Open Education 2014.
Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) in the Global South: Learning to research OER openly from ROER4D
Championing the Cause: Bridging State Policy and Practice in K-12 OER (Open Education 2014, Washington DC, 20 Nov 2014) from Sara Frank Bristow
Evolving Towards Open in a Relatively Closed Institution
#oer, #opened2014
|Hits: 434
Dr. Kurt Gramoll, Robert Hughes Centennial Professor of Engineering, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, has been voted both Most Outstanding and Most Challenging Professor by the AME students. Dr. Gramoll has created his own textbooks and course materials and shares them openly with faculty and students. As Director of the Engineering Media Lab, he has developed both the content and the delivery platform for eCourses, designed to support educational content for six basic engineering courses. His ebooks have been adopted by over twenty faculty to support their courses, both at OU and other universities.
The following is a brief conversation about developing alternative textbooks for teaching.
Stacy Zemke: Why did you decide to switch to or try out an open textbook solution for your course?
Dr. Gramoll: An electronic-based textbook was developed and integrated into my courses so that animations, simulations and audio could be used in the learning process. Cost savings for students was a nice side benefit. My courses generally have 50-70 students. This is a cost savings to students of over $10,000 per course, or $50,000 per year (four courses year).
SZ: What is the open textbook source or sources you are using for your class?
DG: A complete web-based eBook was developed for all four classes listed above. The book replaces four separate textbooks. The print books are still recommended, but not required. It is up to the student to purchase any print material. All homework problems are accessed through the course web site where the eBook is located.
SZ: What was your process for selecting/creating this open book?
DG: The development process is based on what is needed to teach the course. The full process is rather involved, but includes outlines, case studies, HTML coding, simulation programming, animation creation, audio recording, server programming, and testing.
SZ: What are/were the challenges in changing to the open textbook – is it similar to adopting a new "traditional' textbook for a course – or are there other challenges?
DG: The biggest challenge was the developing process and time required. When I started electronic media, there were no open source eBooks for the topics I teach, so I had to write my own.
SZ: How have your students responded to this open textbook?
DG: They have been very positive. The two main comments are, 1) it is available at anytime and anyplace, and 2) the cost savings is great (over $200 per student per course). They would like more examples and practice problems.
SZ: Will you continue to use this current open solution?
DG: Yes.
SZ: Would you consider using an open source for other courses that you teach?
DG: Yes, but would prefer to develop my own.
SZ: What advice do you have for other faculty?
DG: I would encourage some, but not all, to consider developing open course material for others to use. Like printed textbooks, open source material must be created by faculty, not committees or graduate students. It takes time, but it is a wonderful service to our students and society.
Source: http://guides.ou.edu/c.php?g=113945&p=740133
#opentextbook, #oer, #engineering, #kurtgramoll
|Hits: 468
This article was presented by Gráinne Conole, Giles Pepler, Paul Bacsich, Brenda Padilla and Terese Bird. It provides a review of the policy perspectives on Open Educational Resources (OER) and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and draws in particular on the findings from two EU-funded projects: OPAL and POERUP.
The aim was to enable OER and MOOC stakeholders to make informed strategic decisions to promote the use of OER and MOOCs.
It also draws on the findings of the OpenCred project, which focused on recognition of informal and non-formal learning.
Finally it contextualises these projects in terms of a number of related projects and initiatives concerned with OER and MOOCs.
The chapter concludes by discussing the policy implications of OER and MOOCs.
|Hits: 352
Open courseware experts announced plans to publish the 5R Open Course Design Framework, a set of guidelines and best practices for developing courses using open educational resources (OER).
The framework, which will be freely available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC BY), encourages educators to capitalize on the unique rights associated with open content also known as the 5Rs: the ability Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix and Redistribute content for educational purposes.
|Hits: 344
OER Research Hub recently had published the OER Evidence Report 2013-2014, this report provides a focus for research, designed to give answers to the overall question 'What is the impact of OER on learning and teaching practices?' and identify the particular influence of openness.
This report is the collaboration of OERRH with projects across four education sectors (K12, college, higher education and informal) extending a network of research with shared methods and shared results.
The project combines:
This report is an interim review of evidence recorded against the key hypotheses that focus the research of the OER Research Hub project.
Please click here to read the report.
Resource: http://oerresearchhub.org/2014/11/19/oer-evidence-report-2013-2014/
|Hits: 376
Here is the Robert Farrow's slides which he presented during Open Education 2014 on Ethics, openness and the future of education. If you are interested in this subject, you can check out OERRH Ethics Manual and the section on ethics (week 2) of OER Research Hub's Open Research course.
|Hits: 373
Policy favorable to OER is a critical component of the entire open education movement. OER policies currently exist at many levels: international, national, regional, local, and institutional. You can explore various OER policies around the world on the OER Policy Map maintained by the OER Research Hub. Creative Commons also maintains a list of proposed and adopted OER policies that is well-worth your perusal. As I have traveled hither and yon these past few months meeting with Hewlett grantees and others involved and interested in OER, the policy issue has continually surfaced as an important theme. These conversations have caused me to think more deeply about the role of policy in accomplishing Hewlett's goal of mainstreaming OER.
Dr. Vance Randall, an expert in both education policy and educating about education policy (and former advisor to Senator Orrin Hatch) argues that policy is nearly always created to a solve a particular problem or set of problems. From this perspective, the best way to understand an existing policy is to identify the problem(s) it was created to solve (not always an easy task). In advocating for OER-related policies, we should be very clear about the problem the particular policy would solve. What's more, we should recognize that OER policy can solve different problems at different policy levels. Using the "policy/problem/solution" concept as a framework, here is my current thinking (limited as it may be) about OER policy at the international, national, and institutional levels*. For each level, I provide the problems that I think are most easily solved by OER policy, problems I think are less likely to be solved, and my current vision for a "dream" policy. I am very open to feedback about my views on OER policy and hope that others will contribute to the conversation here.
International OER Policy
Policy at the international level related to OER is most likely to be useful in solving the OER awareness problem and the sustainable OER development problem. Awareness of OER is very low throughout the world. International OER policy established by IGOs like the European Commission, UNESCO, OECD, and the World Bank can do much to help solve the awareness problem by being committed to discussing the role of OER in solving broader educational issues at member state gatherings. IGOs that provide funding to member states could also require open licensing of materials produced with those funds. Non-funding IGOs could encourage their member states to adopt national-level policies that require open licensing of all materials produced with public funding. It seems less likely to me that international OER policy can as effectively or directly solve other problems related to OER, including adoption, discoverability/interoperability, and effective Open Educational Practice (OEP) at the classroom level.
A "dream" international OER policy would require member states of each of the respective IGOs to openly license all materials produced with public funds, as a condition of membership.
National OER Policy
Depending on the nation, national OER policies may help solve the sustainable OER development problem by requiring open licensing on materials produced with public funds. National policies could also solve the OER efficacy problem by providing funding for research related to OER and OEP. In democratic, decentralized states like the US, national OER policies are less likely to be effective at tackling the adoption and discoverability/interoperability problems.
A "dream" national OER policy would require all education materials produced with public funding (including all materials produced on-the-clock by faculty and teachers at publically funded institutions and schools) to be openly licensed and shared in a national repository that requires appropriate metadata tagging to increase discoverability.
Institutional OER Policy
Institutional OER policies could help solve nearly every problem related to OER mainstreaming. Institutional OER polices could help solve the OER awareness problem by requiring faculty and teachers to receive professional development related to OER. Institutional policies could also solve the OER development problem by requiring investment in faculty and teacher time to review, adopt, and adapt existing OER (and create new open materials when there are gaps). Institutional policies could solve the adoption problem in higher education by requiring faculty to use OER by default and only use propriety materials when adequate justification exists. In K-12, institutional polices at the school district level could require curricular review boards to give priority to open content and justify use of proprietary content (I suppose regional policies at the state level could do this as well, but it is much less politically viable in the US). Institutional policies could help solve the discoverability/interoperability problems by requiring that all newly created open content carry appropriate metadata, be shared via the national repository (if my national "dream" policy were in place), and require investment in professional development related to effective strategies for finding OER (i.e. "How to Use Google Advanced Search"). Finally, institutional OER policies could solve the OER efficacy problem by encouraging and supporting in-house research on OEP.
A "dream" institutional OER policy in higher education would require faculty to adopt openly licensed content by default, and only allow adoption of proprietary materials if justifiable. A "dream" institutional OER policy in K-12 would require curricular review boards to give priority to open content and only allow adoption of proprietary content in extreme cases (if at all).
A final word about implementation: A policy means nothing if it is not implemented with fidelity. The best "dream" policy in the world is a pile of garbage if the solution it provides is not actually implemented. We need to be spending more time on encouraging implementation of existing OER policies while we are advocating for new ones. As a rule, I believe international policies are much more difficult to implement with fidelity than national policies. I also believe that national policies are much more difficult to implement than institutional policies.
My views on policy implementation, taken together with my argument about institutional OER policies, should leave no one surprised at my current thinking on the OER Policy space: In addition to advocating for policies at the international, national, and regional levels, we should be more intensely investing our energy and advocacy in pushing for solid OER policies at the institutional level – at colleges, universities, and school districts.
I give an important reminder here that the posts on my blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This post simply represents my current, jet-lagged thinking on OER policy. I welcome and encourage feedback from the field on this issue. I absolutely reserve the right to keep an open mind and change my views. Typing this also reminds me of one of my favorite lyrics by one of the greatest bands in the world:
A man came up to me and said:
Let the kindly rock throwing begin.
*I have chosen not to address regional/local policies in this post, not because I feel they are unimportant, but because I see them as an extension of national policies or a reflection of institutional policies, especially in the United States. If someone has an argument for the uniqueness of local/regional OER policies in terms of solving key OER problems, I would love to hear it. I suspect there are some good cases to be made.
Resource: http://tjbliss.org/musings-on-oer-policy/
|Hits: 156
This paper introduces the OpenupEd Quality Label, a quality assurance process for MOOCs that has emerged from the quality assurance of e-learning in distance education. It is a self-assessment and review quality assurance process for the new European OpenupEd portal (www.openuped.eu) for MOOCs (massive open online courses). This process is focused on benchmark statements that seek to capture good practice, both at the level of the institution and at the level of individual courses. The benchmark statements for MOOCs are derived from benchmarks produced by the E xcellence e-learning quality projects (E-xcellencelabel.eadtu.eu/). A process of self-assessment and review is intended to encourage quality enhancement, captured in an action plan.
View and download from here: http://papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/160/45
This paper is an Open Access article, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
|Hits: 406
The Education Ministry of Malaysia had annouced that OpenLearning.com is the official MOOC platfrom for all institutions of higher education in Malaysia. The first stage of the initiative launched on September 18th with four MOOCs:
Over 20,000 students from all twenty universities have joined the MOOCs. For further lauching details, please visit: https://www.openlearning.com/blog/OpenlearningComSelectedAsMalaysiaSNationalMoocPlatform
The Malaysia MOOC portal: https://www.openlearning.com/malaysiamoocs
|Hits: 677
When the Open Textbook Project started two years ago, librarians were identified as one of the important stakeholder groups with essential skills and insights to support faculty in finding and adopting quality open educational resources (OER).
BCcampus began a conversation with some interested librarians, and within a year convened an OER Librarians group committed to advocating OER in their institutions. That conversation culminated in an event this week at Douglas College giving librarians ideas, tools, and motivation for continuing to raise awareness in BC post-secondary institutions. Here are just four of the take-aways (from four of the speakers) from that gathering.
Todd Mundle is the University librarian for Kwantlen Polytechnic University. In his talk, he pointed out: "Faculty don't have a lot experience with the Creative Commons process, and they look to librarians for answers to questions like: what's going to be happening with my materials? What about my copyright?"
Librarians can help with those questions, and also help acquire resources, gain access and raise awareness of OER, engage with faculty and advocate for OER use. "We do have critical analysis skills as librarians," he said.
Todd Mundle also told the group about the OER Librarians project to construct guides for use in institutions.
Quill West, the Washington librarian who spoke to the BCcampus Open Textbook summit last spring, once again delivered an engaging presentation to a B.C. audience. "What leadership in Open Education looks like – that's something I've been interested in for a long time," she said.
She started off with a TED talk by Derek Sivers: "How to start a movement," in which he pointed out the real "leader" is actually the first follower of the "lone nut dancing with his shirt off."
"Lots of people in post-secondary education feel like 'lone nuts' in advocating OER, but you're not alone. Mixed nuts are better!" she said.
Ms. West's main advice was to listen to faculty, students, and administrators, to find out what their concerns and needs are. Then, "construct the elevator speeches that address the issues in YOUR institution." For instance, using the term "OER" for an audience not already aware of OER is a non-starter. Her project at Tacoma Community College was called "Liberate $250K" to drive home the message that open textbooks save students money, and provide more equitable access to education.
"Librarians are seen as the go-to resource by everyone in a post-secondary institution," said Mary Burgess, BCcampus Acting Executive Director. "For instance: cataloguing and version control of the resources in our open textbook collection will become a challenge as the collection grows – and that's something librarians could help with."
When Clint Lalonde from BCcampus first organized a "textbook sprint" to create an open Geography text in four days, there was no librarian on the sprint team. At the urging of Erin Fields at UBC, Jon Strang was brought on board, and it made a huge difference in the outcome of the sprint.
"He had specialized knowledge in copyright," Mr. Lalonde told the group. "He did a lot to get us Creative Commons-licensed materials. He got on the phone and persuaded many people to release resources under CC license. If he couldn't, he would find other resources that were comparable. Not only that, but he kept a record of all the permissions we got over the four-day sprint."
When the Open Textbook Project started two years ago, librarians were identified as one of the important stakeholder groups with essential skills and insights to support faculty in finding and adopting quality open educational resources (OER).
BCcampus began a conversation with some interested librarians, and within a year convened an OER Librarians group committed to advocating OER in their institutions. That conversation culminated in an event this week at Douglas College giving librarians ideas, tools, and motivation for continuing to raise awareness in BC post-secondary institutions. Here are just four of the take-aways (from four of the speakers) from that gathering.
Todd Mundle is the University librarian for Kwantlen Polytechnic University. In his talk, he pointed out: "Faculty don't have a lot experience with the Creative Commons process, and they look to librarians for answers to questions like: what's going to be happening with my materials? What about my copyright?"
Librarians can help with those questions, and also help acquire resources, gain access and raise awareness of OER, engage with faculty and advocate for OER use. "We do have critical analysis skills as librarians," he said.
Todd Mundle also told the group about the OER Librarians project to construct guides for use in institutions.
Quill West, the Washington librarian who spoke to the BCcampus Open Textbook summit last spring, once again delivered an engaging presentation to a B.C. audience. "What leadership in Open Education looks like – that's something I've been interested in for a long time," she said.
She started off with a TED talk by Derek Sivers: "How to start a movement," in which he pointed out the real "leader" is actually the first follower of the "lone nut dancing with his shirt off."
"Lots of people in post-secondary education feel like 'lone nuts' in advocating OER, but you're not alone. Mixed nuts are better!" she said.
Ms. West's main advice was to listen to faculty, students, and administrators, to find out what their concerns and needs are. Then, "construct the elevator speeches that address the issues in YOUR institution." For instance, using the term "OER" for an audience not already aware of OER is a non-starter. Her project at Tacoma Community College was called "Liberate $250K" to drive home the message that open textbooks save students money, and provide more equitable access to education.
"Librarians are seen as the go-to resource by everyone in a post-secondary institution," said Mary Burgess, BCcampus Acting Executive Director. "For instance: cataloguing and version control of the resources in our open textbook collection will become a challenge as the collection grows – and that's something librarians could help with."
When Clint Lalonde from BCcampus first organized a "textbook sprint" to create an open Geography text in four days, there was no librarian on the sprint team. At the urging of Erin Fields at UBC, Jon Strang was brought on board, and it made a huge difference in the outcome of the sprint.
"He had specialized knowledge in copyright," Mr. Lalonde told the group. "He did a lot to get us Creative Commons-licensed materials. He got on the phone and persuaded many people to release resources under CC license. If he couldn't, he would find other resources that were comparable. Not only that, but he kept a record of all the permissions we got over the four-day sprint."
|Hits: 1356
There are lots of learning tools online which are good for teaching and learning. These tools helped the educators and learners in making presentations, online discussions, organising materials, audio visual editing, social media applications etc, most of them are free to use, what you need to do is register yourself!
Here are some ideas where you can get some relevant tools for your teaching and learning:
|Hits: 435
Paperity is the first multi-disciplinary aggregator of peer-reviewed Open Access journals and papers, "gold" and "hybrid". It:
Paperity is the way towards more efficient scholarly communication in all research fields, from Sciences, Technology, Medicine, through Social Sciences, to Humanities and Arts. Their ultimate goal is to aggregate 100% of Open Access literature, published in any place around the world, in any field of research. They hope that journals will support their mission, for the benefit of readers and all scholarly community, who need easy access to literature very much.
Paperity website: http://paperity.org/
|Hits: 363
|Hits: 383
This article is comprehensively explained the background, Open Author platform, metadata profile system and how OER Commons works.
Resource: http://lornamcampbell.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/lrmi-implementation-case-study-iskme-oer-commons/
Co-authors & Project Team: Michelle Brennan, OER Information Services Manager; Lisa Petrides, CEO ISKME.
ISKME first created OER Commons in 2007 as a digital library and content hub to support OER discoverability, use, and reuse. Together with OER content providers and educators, OER Commons aggregates content collections, enriches resource metadata, and curates and organizes rich metadata to support the use and reuse of collections. Resources cover all subject areas and levels of education. OER Commons resources span a wide range of formats including html, ebooks, pdf, video, audio, games, courses, lesson plans, lectures notes, and search tools to enable users to find resources for different contexts of use.
The OER Commons platform today features Open Author, an inclusively designed authoring and remixing environment to support the creation and adaptation of media-rich OER, hosted locally on the platform. The authoring environment produces OER that are accessible using a broad range of assistive technology devices such as screen readers. Open Author resources can be downloaded as PDF or SCORM, or as a "teaching bundle", a zip file containing PDF and media components. The OER Commons infrastructure also supports the evaluation and improvement of quality OER with embedded Common Core State Standards (CCSS) alignment tool and Achieve OER Rubric tool and EQuIP Rubricevaluation tool, developed by several states partnered with Achieve to support collaborative review of CCSS-aligned content, as well as the ability to align content to the Next Generation Science Standards.
The system uses the Django Python framework, which powers OER Commons Platform and Learning Registry application. OER Commons authored content uses Creative Commons licenses, while aggregated resource collections from around the web contain a wider array of applied licenses. OER Commons displays all licensing data in a clear and concise way, making licensing information accessible to all users, regardless of previous experience with OER content.
OER Commons uses an internal metadata profile based on modified LOM, which includes additional fields added to support different projects and initiatives e.g. CELT, A11y and LRMI. As an early adopter of the LRMI specifications, ISKME has mapped all 55,000 OER Commons resources to LRMI-compliant metadata. LRMI and A11y markup is included in the HTML of resources so it can be found by search engines and other applications operating on top of the OER Commons platform. Metadata can be exported as HTML or XML. OER Commons metadata does not use the exact terminology of LRMI, but a mapping has been created from the internal metadata schema to LRMI. The alignmentObject is used to align to NGSS and Common Core state standards. Some Schema.org properties are also used.
The full OER Commons metadata profile is available for collection providers to download. In addition, ISKME provides ametadata sample template for providers to build and export their metadata for inclusion in OER Commons.
OER Commons features a number of different metadata workflows:
Metadata is kept consistent internally by digital librarians to ensure all works well within the application to support search and discovery. OER Commons is committed to maintaining a rich metadata ecosystem with robust checks and balances to ensure high quality metadata.
Metadata that is shared with the Learning Registry is largely in the form of Dublin Core, though some LRMI andSchema.org properties are also used. All resources that have been evaluated using the Achieve OER Rubrics are shared with the Learning Registry. These rubrics help users determine the quality of OERs and the degree to which they align with Common Core State Standards. When uploading to the Learning Registry, LRMI and Schema.org markup is taken from the internal metadata schema and mapped across to Dublin Core. Getting resources back from the Learning Registry has proven to be problematic due to the difficulty of filtering resources.
ISKME brings its OER Commons infrastructure and tools to address organizations' curriculum needs and facilitate team workflows in customized areas of the site. Network Hubs are a key component of ISKME's comprehensive solutions for hosting and indexing content and facilitating collaboration and collection development for a specific audience. In terms of future developments, OER Commons continues to build tools to additional alignment standards, e.g. National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, as well as modified state-specific Common Core standards.
Microsites are comprehensive solutions for hosting and indexing content for a specific audience, and can be located at subdomains of oercommons.org, or be distinguished by a customizable URL at the domain level. Microsites contain all features available on the main site, but house their own collections as well as special curated collections of the full OER Commons database of resources. Microsites on OER Commons can be structured as one or more "network hubs", in which a single microsite is the organizing umbrella for a number of sub-collections or networks. Within a microsite, resources are presented in the context of customized taxonomies and our digital librarians work hand in hand with partners and content providers to identify, categorize, and describe relevant content.
Additionally, ISKME serves as a thought leader around content and metadata interoperability, is a launch partner for the Learning Registry, serves on the LMRI Advisory Board, and leads a project for the US Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) on the creation of cloud-based learner profiles for accessibility. ISKME is part of the GLOBE consortia of repositories from around the world that seeks to build common ways to share and federate educational resources and metadata.
|Hits: 480
The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), realised the need for
The programme has been developed as part of the institutional capacity building for
The five modules are:
Module 1: Concept and Practices of Open Education
|Hits: 715
Journal of Learning for Development Vol 1, No 3 (2014)
Table of Contents
Research Articles
Reports from the Field
|Hits: 549
Tony Bates had shared his experiences writing an open textbook using Pressbook. He had discussed the pros and cons of Pressbook, the challenges of using it and some ideas about limitation of Wordpress.
Resource: http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/26/writing-an-open-textbook-a-mid-term-report-on-the-technology/
Writing an open textbook: a mid-term report on the technology
I'm about half-way through writing my open textbook, 'Teaching in a Digital Age.' I've done about five and a half chapters, and I would like to share my views on the underlying technology that I am using, because, while it does the job reasonably well, we are clearly in the Version 1.0 stage of software development, from an author's perspective. I believe there is a major opportunity to develop a software authoring framework that fully exploits the open characteristics of a textbook, but we are not there yet.
I'm writing this book more or less on my own, although I do have some support from an instructional designer and I'm anticipating getting some help with marketing once the book is complete. I'm also getting a lot of useful feedback, because I am publishing as the book is being developed (the first five chapters are already available here) and also publishing excerpts in this blog.
My main technical support is coming from BCcampus, which is managing a large open textbook project on behalf of the British Columbia provincial government. My book is not directly related to the provincial government-funded project, which at this stage is focused primarily on converting existing print textbooks to open, online versions. However, as the project advances, more open textbooks will need to be written from scratch. (For more on the BCcampus open textbook project project, see here.)
BCcampus has taken an 'off-the-shelf' open source authoring software 'shell' called Pressbooks, which in itself is based on WordPress. BCcampus has made some further adaptations to Pressbooks for the open textbooks that BCcampus is helping to develop. I have used the BCcampus version of Pressbooks to create my own textbook. However, anyone can use Pressbooks for free, if they wish to write an openly published book.
What I am trying to do
My goals are two-fold:
This is a report on where I've got to so far in authoring the book, using the Pressbooks/BCcampus template, and in particular on what I'm finding regarding the potential and limitations of the software for authoring an open textbook.
What works
It is extremely easy to start authoring with Pressbooks. After you log in to the Pressbooks main page, you can easily set up an account which is password protected. Once you have an account, you will be assigned a url which will take you to your admin page, from where you can author your book.
Anyone who has used WordPress for blogging will have no difficulty whatsoever in getting started in Pressbooks. If you already have a structure for the book in your mind, and know what you want to write, you can be writing within less than ten minutes of signing up with Pressbooks. You can also open accounts for others, such as co-authors, an editor, or an instructional designer, with password-protected access to the editing part.
Pressbooks allows you to work in private or to publish each chapter or section when ready. You can 'export' , in several versions, such as ePub, pdf or html, for free downloading. BCcampus is also making available, at cost, printed versions of their textbooks. The 'exported' version looks clean and replicates almost exactly the edited version, with embedded urls, diagrams, headings and indentation. The variety of exported formats enables use of the textbooks on various mobile devices and tablets. If the recommended technological structure is followed when writing and editing, the reader can easily navigate through the book in a variety of ways.
Thus, for basic book writing and publishing, Pressbooks is easy to use, comprehensive in the devices it can be used on, and pleasant to read.
From the perspective however of an open textbook, I found the following challenges:
Lack of interactivity
Those of you used to using a learning management system are likely to be frustrated by the lack in Pressbooks of common features found within an LMS, such as ways to provide feedback on exercises, places where readers/students can add their own contributions, or places where monitored and edited discussions can take place. Thus some of the key opportunities to make a book more interactive and open are currently not available, without going outside the Pressbooks environment. There are two reasons for this.
1. Pressbooks was originally designed for supporting fiction writers, and as such works perfectly for them (providing they can manage to write easily in WordPress). If you want a straight read through a book, it is perfect, but this is not what you necessarily want with an educational textbook.
2. BCcampus has added some useful features, such as widgets that allow you to insert text boxes for learning objectives, student exercises, and key take-aways, but has had to disable the comment feature because the textbooks are likely to be used by many instructors with different classes. BCcampus is rightly worried that it would be confusing and overwhelming for multiple instructors if students across all the classes shared the same comment boxes. However, as an author, I want to integrate both the activities and the student responses to the activities, and above all I want comments and feedback on what I've written.
There are in fact really several distinct stages or uses of an open textbook:
What I'd really like is a widget where I can just drop in a comment box in the right place, and the ability as an author to open, clear or disable it, as well as monitoring and where necessary editing it. It could be switched to open or private.
I have also explored some possible open source discussion forums or wikis, and computer-based test services, but these would have to sit outside the textbook, and I haven't found a satisfactory service yet (although I haven't looked very hard – suggestions welcome.)
The technological structure of the book
Unlike many online books that you will find on Kindle or iPads, Pressbooks does not output in discrete pages. The way it manages the structure of the book to enable fluent navigation by the reader is not immediately transparent to an author writing a book.
The two key features are Parts and Chapters. I assumed (incorrectly) that Parts were sub-units or sections of Chapters. This suited me, as I'm expecting a diverse audience with a wide range of prior knowledge. I assumed that many would not want to read a whole chapter on say design models, but may have a particular interest in some of the models and not in others. However, I made the basic mistake of not reading the BCcampus Authors' Manual carefully before starting (and when I did read it, I did not understand it.) What I hadn't realised was that Chapters link to Parts and the Parts are not intended to have much, if any, content.
Parts are really an introduction to the substance, a kind of organiser for the actual following content, which take place in the Chapters. Think of a novel: Part 1: 1969, Chapter 1: Boy meets girl. However, I rushed off and wrote Parts like sections of a chapter then cut and pasted each Part into a Chapter. I got half-way through writing the book before realising this was a mistake, thanks to a very helpful recent meeting with staff from BCcampus.
So I have ended up using a Part like an advance organiser for a chapter, and the Chapter feature for each section of a 'Part'. This works well now, the navigation is much better, and it avoids the reader having to scroll down through an 8,000 word chapter. Some 'Chapters' in Pressbooks terminology are only a couple of paragraphs long and I have renamed them sections, with the Part containing the Chapter name. I also use the Part to state the purpose of the Chapter, what is covered in the chapter, and the key takeaways.
However, as you can see, the Pressbooks terminology of Parts and Chapters is really misleading. Worse, I spent two whole days cutting and repasting content I had already written in order to get the content into the right technological structure required by the software.
No mark-up facility
Unlike Word, an editor or a co-author cannot mark up drafts in Pressbooks (or WordPress for that matter – if there is a plug-in for this, please let me know.) This makes co-production of a book and getting feedback much more frustrating, especially as there is no comment feature.
If you are writing a co-edited or co-authored book, this is a major limitation, and a better strategy might be to initially edit in Google Docs or Word, then transfer everything when finished into Pressbooks or another publishing software shell. Even then, this is not a good solution because of the high risk of losing material during the transfer – and in any case, when is an open textbook ever finished? It should be a work in continuous updating.
Even for a single author, though, the inability to mark up drafts in Pressbooks is a considerable nuisance, especially if the comment feature is disabled. Not only my instructional designer, but also several readers who are following the development of the book, are copying sections from the Pressbook version into Word, marking up suggested corrections in Word, sending me the Word document, which I then go through then make any necessary changes in the Pressbooks version.
What is needed of course is a mark-up plug-in for WordPress, which would have much wider value than just open textbook authoring.
Limitations of WordPress
Some of these limitations are also limitations of writing and editing in WordPress. The feature for creating tables is so difficult to use that it is essentially useless. Some of the formatting doesn't transfer when cutting and pasting to another screen page (which I have to do often), such as text alignment. I spend an enormous amount of time scrolling up to the top of the page, looking for the toolbox menu, to add urls, italics, lists, or indents, sometimes accidentally transferring out of the editing page and thus losing some of the more recent writing. (Apparently, in the new version of WordPress 4, the scrolling issue to get to the toolbar will be resolved – the toolbar will stay at the top of the screen, however far down you scroll).
However, I am spending far too much time on editing and not enough on creative writing. Editing is always a time-consuming but necessary activity when writing, but I really could do without technology frustrations when editing.
Pressbooks is a workable solution for writing an open textbook, but it works best if you want just a simple read through by the reader, in the manner of a traditional textbook. If though you want to make it more interactive, and open to comment, criticisms and substantive contributions from other people, then the current Pressbooks software is very limiting.
Pressbooks is a classic case of taking a new medium and merely transferring the format and structure of a previously existing medium. Although this is probably an essential and useful first step, what is really required is a complete re-design that fully exploits the characteristics or affordances of the new medium. For this to happen, though, a partnership between software engineers, potential authors and instructional designers is needed. However, there is a great opportunity here for creating truly innovative open source software for supporting open textbooks, if anyone has the time and resources to do this.
Authors such as myself also need to work out the difference (if any) between an open textbook and a learning management system. There are real difficulties in making everything in a course open, mainly because of hacking, spam and other external nuisances that can seriously disrupt a serious, engaged educational experience. The same applies to blogs and open textbooks. If the comment feature is too open it becomes overwhelmed with hacking and spam (I'm clearing about 50 bot-generated messages a day from my blog comment box – I don't want to also have to spend this time keeping the comments on an open textbook under control.)
However, even accepting that an open textbook is not a substitute for an LMS, authors need to think carefully how the textbook can best be integrated or adopted within a course. Sample activities, suggestions for model answers, etc., can all be included. Above all, though, authors need to be clear when writing as to what will be done within the technological limitations of the textbook, what is best done outside the textbook, and how best to integrate these two elements.
I have to say I haven't worked this out yet. It's still a work in progress.
Over to you
As you can see, I am somewhat bumbling my way through the technology side of the writing, learning mainly through experience, although BCcampus has been more than helpful. I'd really like to hear though from other open textbook authors: is your experience similar or very different and if so why? Have you used different authoring software and how did that go?
Also, on the technology side, I'm still very open to other technology solutions, so long as they can be seamlessly integrated with Pressbooks. I have gone too far now to move to another software solution. But any suggestions welcome.
|Hits: 795
|Hits: 400
Four universities were discussed in this case studies, they are:
1. Open University of Sri Lanka – Integrating OER in a Teacher Education Course by Shironica Karunanayaka
Lets learn how these universities conduct their OEP development and face their challenges in this publication.
|Hits: 454
Dear colleagues,
Below is a list of references on OER, Open Education, Open Educational Practices, repositories, open access and related themes prepared by Javiera Atenas and his fellow colleagues. Please take note that this list will be updated from time to time. Kindly click at the link below for latest update.
During the last 4 years and with a little help of my friends (mostly @leohavemann &@ernestopriego) I collected a large (very large) list of references on OER, Open Education, Open Educational Practices, repositories, open access and related themes which I used to write my PhD and all the papers / columns / presentations we have written, and, basically this lists has been stored in my ref management system for a while, quietly, but suddenly this week I been asked to share my list of references by few of my fellow OER researchers, so here it is… but before start, please read the notes below
So, the reference list is here, is not perfect I know but hope is useful…
Bibliography of OER – ROER – RLO related themes
Abeywardena, I., Raviraja, S., & Tham, C. (2012). Conceptual framework for parametrically measuring the desirability of open educational resources using D-index. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1177
Abeywardena, I., Tham, C., & Raviraja, S. (2012). Conceptual Framework for Parametrically Measuring the Desirability of Open Educational Resources using D-Index. Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1177/2181
Achieve. (2011). Rubrics for Evaluating Open Education Resource (OER) Objects (pp. 1–11). Washington D. C.
Aguaded-Gómez, J. I. (2013). The MOOC Revolution: A new form of education from the technological paradigm? Comunicar, 21(41), 07–08. doi:10.3916/C41-2013-a1
Albert, M.-T. (2012). Community development through World Heritage. World Heritage Papers 31 – Community Development through World Heritage, 31, 32 – 38. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_31_en.pdf
Alevizou, P. (2012a). Open to interpretation? : productive frameworks for understanding audience engagement with OER. In Cambridge 2012: Innovation and Impact – Openly Collaborating to Enhance Education, a joint meeting of OER12 and OpenCourseWare Consortium Global 2012. Cambridge. Retrieved fromhttp://oro.open.ac.uk/33452/
Alevizou, P. (2012b). The dark side of the knowledge commons?: open educational media and tensions surrounding autonomy and novel spheres of control. InECREA 2012 Pre-Conference: Imposing Freedoms: The Role of Copyright, Privacy and Censorship Governance in the Re/definition of Rights in Digital Media. Istanbul. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35483/
Amiel, T. (2013). Identifying Barriers to the Remix of Translated Open Educational Resources. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,14(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1351/2448
Amiel, T., Orey, M., & West, R. (2011). Recursos educacionais abertos (rea): modelos para localização e adaptação. ETD–Educaçao Temática Digital, 112–125. Retrieved from http://www.fe.unicamp.br/revistas/ged/etd/article/view/2284
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U.-D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., & Conole, G. (2011). Beyond OER: Shifting Focus from Resources to Practices (pp. 1–191). Duisburg-Essen. Retrieved from http://www.oerasia.org/OERResources/8.pdf
Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/372/952
Arcos, B. de los. (2014). Flipping with OER : K12 teachers ' views of the impact of open practices on students. In OCWC Global 2014: Open Education for a Multicultural World. Ljubljana,. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/40093/
Armellini, A., & Nie, M. (2013). Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning,28(1), 7–20. doi:10.1080/02680513.2013.796286
Atenas, J., & Havemann, L. (2013). A vision of Quality in Repositories of Open Educational Resources. In Y. Punie, Christine Redecker, & J. Castaño (Eds.),OPEN EDUCATION 2030. JRC-IPTS CALL FOR VISION PAPERS. PART III: HIGHER EDUCATION (pp. 54–59). European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved fromhttp://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/documents/All_OE2030_HE_v 4_authorrevised_OK.pdf
Atenas, J., & Havemann, L. (2013). Quality assurance in the open: an evaluation of OER repositories. INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 1(2), 22–34. Retrieved fromhttp://papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/30/12
Atenas, J., & Havemann, L. (2014). Questions of quality in repositories of open educational resources: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.20889
Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Priego, E. (2014). Opening teaching landscapes: The importance of quality assurance in the delivery of open educational resources.Open Praxis, 6(1), 29–43. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.81
Atenas, J., Rojas-Sateler, F., & Pérez-Montoro, M. (2012). Repositorios de recursos educativos abiertos. El Profesional de La Información, 21(2), 190–193. doi:10.3145/epi.2012.mar.10
Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf
Attis, D., Koproske, C., & Miller, C. (2012). Understanding the MOOC Trend The Adoption and Impact of Massive Open Online Courses. Retrieved fromhttps://www20.csueastbay.edu/oaa/files/Info_files/MOOC Trend.pdf
Barbosa, E., Gimenes, I. M., & Barroca, L. (2012). Towards the development of open educational resources: challenges and issues. In II International Symposium on OER: Issues for globalization and localization. Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved fromhttp://www.br-ie.org/pub/index.php/wcbie/article/view/1889
Barker, P. (2005). What is IEEE Learning Object Metadata/IMS Learning Resource Metadata? Cetis standards briefings series. Bolton. Retrieved fromhttp://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/WhatIsIEEELOM.pdf
Barker, P. (2010). Metadata for Learning Materials: An Overview of Existing Standards and Current Developments. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(3 – 4), 225 –243. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oldcitypublishing.com/TICL/TICLcontents/TICLv7n3-4contents.html
Barrio, M., & García, S. (2007). Acciones de diseño y desarrollo de objetos educativos digitales: programas institucionales. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 14(Special Issue: Contenidos educativos en abierto). Retrieved fromhttp://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/esp/gertrudix_alvarez_galisteo_galvez.pdf
Beetham, H. (2011). Understanding the role of OERs in open educational practices. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/loumcgill/understanding-the-role-of-oers-in-open-educational-practices
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its Place in Theory-Informed Research and Innovation in Technology- Enabled Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98 – 118. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/902/1664
Benkler, Y. (2005). Common wisdom: Peer production of educational materials. Retrieved from http://benkler.xablsng.com/Common_Wisdom.pdf
Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: the missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179–189. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624997
Bergamin, P., & Filk, C. (2009). «Open Educational Resources » ( OER ) – Ein didaktischer Kulturwechsel ? In M. Müller, P. Bergamin, & C. Filk (Eds.), Offene Bildungsinhalte (OER), Teilen von Wissen oder Gratisbildungskultur? (pp. 25 – 38). Bern: Hep verlag. Retrieved from http://www.ifel.ch/en/publikationen-en/OER-Bergamin_Filk.pdf
Bindé, J., & Matsuura, K. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf
Bissell, A. (2009). Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(1), 97–106. doi:10.1080/02680510802627886
Boneu, J. (2007). Plataformas abiertas de e-learning para el soporte de contenidos educativos abiertos. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 4. Retrieved from http://www.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/rusc/article/viewFile/v4n1-contenidos-educativos-en-abierto/v4n1-contenidos-educativos-en-abierto#page=36
Bossu, C., Bull, D., & Brown, M. (2012). Opening up Down Under: the role of open educational resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia. Distance Education, (August 2012), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.692050
Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research (2nd ed., p. 288). Philadelphia: Kogan – Market Research in Practice.
Brent, I., Gibbs, G. R., & Gruszczynska, A. K. (2012). Obstacles to creating and finding Open Educational Resources: the case of research methods in the social sciences.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (Special Issue on Open Educational Resources), 1–17. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-05/html
Browne, T., Holding, R., Hollell, A., & Rodway-Dyer, S. (2010). The challenges of OER to Academic Practice. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (Special Issue on Open Educational Resources), 1–15. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2010-3/html
Buckler, A., Perryman, L., Seal, T., & Musafir, S. (2014). The role of OER localisation in building a knowledge partnership for development: Comparing the TESSA and TESS-India teacher education projects. Open Praxis. Retrieved fromhttps://www.openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/136
Butcher, N. (2010). OER dossier: Open educational resources and higher education. InWorkshop for Heads of Commonwealth Universities. South Africa. Retrieved fromhttp://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/OER_Open_Educational_Resources_and_Higher_Education.pdf
Butcher, N., Kanwar, A., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (Eds.). (2011). A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources (OER) (p. 133). Paris & Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning & UNESCO. Retrieved from http://dspace.col.org/handle/123456789/428
Camilleri, A., Ehlers, U., & Pawlowski, J. (2014). State of the Art Review of Quality Issues related to Open Educational Resources ( OER ) (p. 57). Retrieved fromhttp://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2014/9101/
Campbell, L. M., Barker, P., Currier, S., & Syrotiuk, N. (2013). The Learning Registry : social networking for open educational resources? In OER13: Creating a Virtuous Circle (pp. 1–6). Nottingham. Retrieved fromhttp://www.medev.ac.uk/oer13/108/view/
Carson, S. (2005). 2004 MIT OCW Program Evaluation Findings Report. Massachusets Institute of Technology. Retrieved fromhttp://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/evaluation.htm
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (Eds.). (2005). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. The Network Society From Knowledge to Policy. Washington: Center for Transatlantic Relations The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies The Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved fromhttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=jane_fountain#page=29
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–11. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469/1001
Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and enhancing scholarship in the digital age: the role of open access institutional repository. Canadian Journal of Communication, 29, 277–300. Retrieved from http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/1455
Christen, K. (2011). Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation. American Archivist, 4, 185–210. Retrieved fromhttp://archivists.metapress.com/index/4233NV6NV6428521.pdf
Clements, K. I., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2012). User-oriented quality for OER: understanding teachers' views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 4–14. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00450.x
Clements, K., Pawlowski, J., & Manouselis, N. (2014). Why Open Educational Resources Repositories fail – Review of Quality Assurance Approaches. InEDULEARN14 Proceedings. 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona, Spain (pp. 929–939). Barcelona: International Association of Technology, Education and Development IATED. Retrieved fromhttp://library.iated.org/view/CLEMENTS2014WHY
Cleveland-Innes, M. (2012). Editorial: Who needs leadership? Social problems, change, and education futures. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 232 – 235. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1226/2174
Conole, G. (2012). Fostering social inclusion through open educational resources (OER). Distance Education, (August), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2012.700563
Cordón-García, J. (2007). The Citizens' Europe: the challenges of gaining access to and preserving culture. In Declaration by the members of the European Academy of Yuste on the perspectives for a citizens' and social europe (pp. 1–11). Yuste. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/handle/10760/8904
Corrado, E. (2005). The importance of open access, open source, and open standards for libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 5, 1–7. Retrieved from http://codabox.org/15/
Coughlan, T., Ebrahimi, N., McAndrew, P., & Pitt, R. (2013). Assessing OER impact across varied organisations and learners : experiences from the " Bridge to Success " initiative. In OER13: Creating a Virtuous Circle. Nottingham. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/37754/
Coughlan, T., Pitt, R., & McAndrew, P. (2013). Building open bridges. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI '13, 991. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466127
Currier, S., Barton, J., O'Beirne, R., & Ryan, B. (2004). Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process. Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 5–20. doi:10.1080/0968776042000211494
D'Antoni, S. (2007). Open Educational Resources and Open Content for Higher Education. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/eng/dantoni.pdf
D'Antoni, S. (2008). Open Educational Resources the way forward, deliberations of an international community of interest. Retrieved from Antoni_OERTheWayForward_2008_eng.pdf
D'Antoni, S. (2009). Open Educational Resources: reviewing initiatives and issues.Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(1), 3–10. doi:10.1080/02680510802625443
Das, A. K. (2008). Open Access to Knowledge and Information: Scholarly Literature and Digital Library Initiatives The South Asian Scenario. (B. K. S. and J. Josiah, Ed.) (p. 137). New Delhi: UNESCO. Retrieved fromhttp://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/106335
Davis, H. C., Carr, L., Hey, J. M. N., Howard, Y., Millard, D., Morris, D., & White, S. (2010). Bootstrapping a Culture of Sharing to Facilitate Open Educational Resources. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(2), 96–109. doi:10.1109/TLT.2009.34
Descombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide for Small Scale Social Research Projects. (4th ed., p. 349). Maidenhead: McGraw – Hill Education.
DeVries, I. (2013). Evaluating Open Educational Resources: Lessons Learned.Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83(2007), 56–60. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.012
Dezuanni, M., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2012). «Prosuming» across Cultures: Youth Creating and Discussing Digital Media across Borders. Comunicar, 19(38), 59–66. doi:10.3916/C38-2012-02-06
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning. New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5
Downes, S. (2001). Learning Objects: Resources For Distance Education Worldwide.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1), 1–35. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/32
Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 29–44. Retrieved fromhttp://www.downes.ca/post/33401
Dueñas, L. (2008). Repositorios documentales y la iniciativa de archivos abiertos en Latinoamérica. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia I Documentació, 20. Retrieved from http://bid.ub.edu/pdf/20gomez2.pdf
Edwards, R., Tracy, F., & Jordan, K. (2011). Mobilities, moorings and boundary marking in developing semantic technologies in educational practices. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 219–232. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624167
Ehiyazaryan, E. (2012). Embedding Open Educational Resources in Research Methods Teaching in Education, Social Science and Criminology. Retrieved fromhttps://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/EsterEhiyazaryan Fellowship Final Report – Web Version.pdf
Ehlers, U., & Conole, G. (2010). Open Educational Practices : Unleashing the power of OER (pp. 1–9). Retrieved from http://efquel.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/OEP_Unleashing-the-power-of-OER.pdf
Farrow, R. (2014). OER Impact: Collaboration, Evidence, Synthesis. In CWC Global 2014: Open Education for a Multicultural World. Retrieved fromhttp://cdlh7.free.fr/OCWC_2014/Final_papers/Paper_51.pdf
Ferguson, R., & Shum, S. B. (2012). Towards a social learning space for open educational resources. In A. Okada, T. Connolly, & P. Scott (Eds.), Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open Educational Resources (pp. 309–327). Hershey,: PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0300-4.ch017
Fitzgerald, B. (2007). Open Content Licencing (OCL) for Open Educational Resources: Paper commissioned by the OECD's Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) for the project on Open Educational Resources. Retrieved fromhttp://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/oecd-open-licensing-review.pdf
Friesen, N. (2009). Open Educational Resources: New Possibilities for Change and Sustainability. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Review, 10(5), 1–13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/664/1388
Friesen, N., & Wihak, C. (2013). From OER to PLAR: Credentialing for open education.Open Praxis, 5(1), 49–58. Retrieved fromhttp://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/22
Geser, G. (2007). Prácticas y recursos de educación abierta: la hoja de ruta OLCOS 2012. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 14(Special Issue: Contenidos educativos en abierto). Retrieved fromhttp://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/esp/geser.pdf
Gourley, B., & Lane, A. (2009). Re-invigorating openness at The Open University: the role of Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(1), 57–65. doi:10.1080/02680510802627845
Graham, G., & Campbell, L. (2003). UK Learning Object Metadata Core Draft. Retrieved from http://www.cetis.ac.uk/profiles/uklomcore
Greaves, L., Roller, S., & Bradley, C. (2010). Repurposing with a purpose: A story with a happy ending. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 5. Retrieved fromhttp://jime.open.ac.uk/2010/05
Haggard, S. (2013). The Maturing of the MOOC. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/massive-open-online-courses-and-online-distance-learning-review
Harley, D., Henke, J., Lawrence, S., Miller, I., Perciali, I. and Nasatir, D. (2006). Use and Users of Digital Resources: A Focus on Undergraduate Education in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education – UC Berkeley. Retrieved fromhttp://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/digitalresourcestudy/report/digitalresourcestudy_final_report_text.pdf
Havemann, L., & Atenas, J. (2014). MOOCs must move beyond open enrolment and demonstrate a true commitment to reuse and long-term redistribution. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Retrieved fromhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/03/07/is-it-time-for-moocs-to-open-up/
Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review.Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117–127. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.586677
Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference—inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education, (August), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.692066
Holden, C. (2003). From Local Challenges to a Global Community : Learning Repositories and the Global Learning Repositories Summit (pp. 0–30). Retrieved from http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/FinalSummitReport.pdf
Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2003). Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. Maryland. Retrieved fromhttp://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm
Howard, S., & Maton, K. (2011). Theorising knowledge practices: a missing piece of the educational technology puzzle. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 191–206. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624170
Hylén, J. (2006). Open educational resources: Opportunities and challenges.Proceedings of Open Education. Retrieved fromhttp://library.oum.edu.my/oumlib/sites/default/files/file_attachments/odl-resources/386010/oer-opportunities.pdf
Jacobi, R., & Woert, N. van der. (2012). Trend Report on Open Educational Resources 2012 – Surf Report (p. 81). Utrecht. Retrieved fromhttp://www.surf.nl/en/knowledge-and-innovation/knowledge-base/2012/trend-report-on-open-educational-resources-2012.html
Johnstone, S. (2005). Open educational resources serve the world. Educause Quarterly, (3), 15–18. Retrieved fromhttps://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0533.pdf
Kawachi, P. (2009). Open Educational Resources: Other Frameworks. Open-Ed.net, 1–5. Retrieved from http://www.open-ed.net/oer-quality/others.pdf
Kawachi, P. (2013). Quality Assurance Guidelines for Open Educational Resources: TIPS Framework (p. 32). New Dehli: Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia New Delhi. Retrieved fromhttp://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/OERQ_TIPS_978-81-88770-07-6.pdf
König, A. (2009). Unvorhergesehene Nutzung von neuen Lehr-Lern-Medien. In Offene Bildungsinhalte (OER) Teilen von Wissen oder Gratisbildungskultur? (pp. 73–99). Göttingen: hep verlag ag, Bern. Retrieved fromhttp://pd.zhaw.ch/hop/1528233917.pdf
Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2007). Advancing Sustainability of Open Educational Resources. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2007/IISITv4p535-544Kooh275.pdf
Koppi, T., Bogle, L., & Bogle, M. (2005). Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 20(1), 83–91. doi:10.1080/0268051042000322113
Kuhlen, R., & Seadle, M. (2011). Zur urheberrechtlichen Gestaltung von Repositorien Handreichung für Universitäten, Forschungszentren und andere Bildungseinrichtungen. (R. Kuhlen, M. Seadle, T. Hartmann, E. Di Rosa, & V. Djordjevic, Eds.)Handreichung für Universitäten, Forschungszentren …. Berlin: Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.iuwis.de/sites/default/files/IUWIS Zur urheberrechtlichen Gestaltung von Repositorien.pdf
Lane, A. (2009). The Impact of Openness on Bridging Educational Digital Divides.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/637
Lane, A., & McAndrew, P. (2010). Are open educational resources systematic or systemic change agents for teaching practice? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 952–962. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01119.x
Langen, F. de. (2013). Strategies for Sustainable Business Models for Open Educational Resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), 53–66. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1533/2485
Law, P., Perryman, L., & Law, A. (2013). Open educational resources for all ? Comparing user motivations and characteristics across The Open University 's iTunes U channel and OpenLearn platform. In Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2013. Paris. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/39102/
Leacock, T., & Nesbit, J. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ifets.info
Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A Systematic Study of the Published Literature 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
Marcus-Quinn, A., & Diggins, Y. (2013). Open Educational Resources. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 243–246. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.183
Martin, F. G. (2012). Will massive open online courses change how we teach?.Communications of the ACM, 55(8), 26 – 28. Retrieved fromhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2240246
Mcandrew, B. P., Scanlon, E., & Clow, D. (2010). An Open Future for Higher Education Journal. Educause Quarterly, 33(1). Retrieved fromhttp://www.educause.edu/ero/article/open-future-higher-education
McAndrew, P. (2010). Defining openness: updating the concept of "open" for a connected world. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 10, 1–13. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2010-10/html
McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2013). Open education research: from the practical to the theoretical. In S. eds. McGreal, Rory; Kinuthia, Wanjira and Marshall (Ed.), Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice (pp. 66–78). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University,. Retrieved fromhttp://oro.open.ac.uk/37756/
McAndrew, P., & Farrow, R. (2013). The ecology of sharing : synthesizing OER research. In OER 13: Creating a virtuous circle. Nottingham. Retrieved fromhttp://oro.open.ac.uk/37755/
Mcandrew, P., Farrow, R., Law, P., & Elliot-cirigottis, G. (2012). Learning the Lessons of Openness. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1–13. Retrieved fromhttp://www-jime.open.ac.uk/article/2012-10/pdf
McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education.International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44. doi:dx.doi.org/doi/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359. 81781.7c
McGreal, R. (2011). Open educational resource repositories: An analysis. In The 3rd Annual Forum on e-Learning Excellence, Dubai, UAe. Dubai. Retrieved fromhttp://elexforum.hbmeu.ac.ae/Proceeding/PDF/Open Educational Resource.pdf
Mcgreal, R., Kinuthia, W., & Marshall, S. (Eds.). (2013). Open Educational Resources : Innovation, Research and Practice. Atahbasca: UNESCO, Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University. Retrieved fromhttp://www.col.org/resources/publications/Pages/detail.aspx?PID=446
McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2003). Interoperability between information and learning environments: bridging the gaps: a joint white paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. Retrieved fromhttp://www.imsglobal.org/TAI3/McLean.pdf
Milligan, C. (2013). Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159. Retrieved fromhttp://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.htm
Misra, P. K. (2013). Pedagogical quality enrichment in OER based courseware: Guiding principles. Open Praxis, 5(2), 123–134. Retrieved fromhttp://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/60
Nagashima, T. (2014). What Makes Open Education Thrive?: Examination of Factors Contributing to the Success of Open Education Initiatives. Innoqual: International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning. Retrieved fromhttp://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/156
Nesbit, J, Belfer, K, Vargo, J. (2002). A Convergent Participation Model for Evaluation of Learning Objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de L'apprentissage et de La Technologie, 28(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/110
Neven, F., & Duval, E. (2002). Reusable learning objects: a survey of LOM-based repositories. Roceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 291–294. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=641067
Nikoi, S., & Armellini, A. (2012). The OER mix in higher education: purpose, process, product, and policy. Distance Education, (August), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.697439
Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2009). Quantitative Analysis of Learning Object Repositories.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 226–238. doi:10.1109/TLT.2009.28
Olcott, D. (2012). OER perspectives: Emerging issues for universities. Distance Education, (August), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.700561
Open University – Lab Space. (2010). Different types of OER. Lab Space. Retrieved from http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=432761
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.sourceoecd.org/education/9789264031746
Panke, S. (2011). n expert survey on the barriers and enablers of open educational practices. eLearning Papers, 23, 1–9. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/ media/media25163.pdf
Panke, S., & Seufert, T. (2013). What's Educational about Open Educational Resources? Different Theoretical Lenses for Conceptualizing Learning with OER.E-Learning and Digital Media, (April). Retrieved fromhttp://panke.web.unc.edu/files/2012/07/ELEA2012-preprint.pdf
Park, E., & Oh, S. (2012). Examining Attributes of Open Standard File Formats for Long-term Preservation and Open Access. Information Technology and Libraries, (December), 44–65. Retrieved fromhttp://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/1946
Pawlowski, J. (2007). The quality adaptation model: adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1 for learning, education, and training. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 3–16. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ifets.info/journals/10_2/2.pdf
Pawlowski, J. (2012). Open Educational Resources and Practices for Educational Cross-Border Collaboration: Outcomes and Recommendations. In Workshop on internationalization of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP) – WSIS Forum, 16.5.2012 Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva: WSIS – United Nations. Retrieved from http://monet.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/giotto/OpenScout_429f9d03-a64b-11e1-80e6-9fc9266e0d49.pdf
Pawlowski, J., & Hoel, T. (2012). Towards a Global Policy for Open EducationalJyväskylä. Retrieved from http://monet.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/giotto/OpenScout_df6f1252-bfa6-11e1-a668-e13baff9bd23.pdf
Pegler, C. (2012). Herzberg, hygiene and the motivation to reuse: Towards a three-factor theory to explain motivation to share and use OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 4, 1–18. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/04
Perryman, L., Law, P., & Law, A. (2013). Developing sustainable business models for institutions ' provision of open educational resources : Learning from OpenLearn users ' motivations and experiences. In Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2013. Paris. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/39101/
Petrides, L., & Nguyen, L. (2008). Open educational resources : inquiring into author use and reuse. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1, 98–117. Retrieved from http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/9428665670616423.pdf
Piedra, N., & Chicaiza, J. (2014). Supporting openness of MOOCs contents through of an OER and OCW framework based on Linked Data technologies. In 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1112–1117). Istanbul. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6826249
Pirkkalainen, H., Jokinen, J., & Pawlowski, J. (2014). Understanding Social OER Environments – a Quantitative Study on Factors Influencing the Motivation to Share and Collaborate. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1382, 1–1. doi:10.1109/TLT.2014.2323970
Phelan, L. (2012). Politics, practices, and possibilities of open educational resources.Distance Education, (August), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.692070
Prasad, D., & Usagawa, T. (2014). Towards development of OER derived custom-built open textbooks: A baseline survey of university teachers at the University of the South Pacific. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(4). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1873
Prior, J. (2011). Using online synchronous interviews to explore the workflows, barriers and benefits for practitioners involved in the creation of Open Educational Resources (. University of Brisol. Retrieved fromhttp://www.academia.edu/download/30293281/2011_JP0650752dissertationfinal.pdf
Pulker, H., & Calvi, A. (2013). The evaluation and re-use of Open Educational Resources in language teaching – a case study. In OER13: Creating a Virtuous Circle. Nottingham. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/38056/2/9FAE2C09.pdf
Qi, M., & Boyle, T. (2010). Dimensions of Culturally Sensitive Factors in the Design and Development of Learning Objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6, 1–17. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2010/06
Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and Connectivism: A New Approach to Understanding and Promoting Dialogue-Rich Networked Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(Special Issue – Connectivism: Design and Delivery of Social Networked Learning), 139–160. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/934/1676
Rawsthorne, P., & Stevens, K. (2007). Assessing the Quality of Open Educational Resource based Wikis. Wikieducator (pp. 1–22). Retrieved fromhttp://www.rawsthorne.org/docs/PeterRawsthorne.QualityOERbasedWikis.pdf
Richter, T. (2012). Contextual Influence Factors on Educational Scenarios. Essen. Retrieved from http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-30019/021_DuePublico_Learning_Context_Metadata_Richter_April2012.pdf
Richter, T., & Ehlers, U. (2010). Barriers and Motivators for Using Open Educational Resources in Schools. In Open ED 2010 Proceedings (pp. 1–12). Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/OPAL/RichterEhlers-BarriersandMotivatorsforUsingOERinSchools.pdf
Richter, T., & McPherson, M. (2012). Open educational resources: education for the world? Distance Education, 33(2), 37–41. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.692068
Richter, T., & Veith, P. (2014). Fostering the Exploitation of Open Educational Resources. Open Praxis, 6(3), 205–220. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.3.139
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (11th ed., p. 430). London: Sage.
Rivera-Aguilera, A., Téllez-Bertadillo, J. J., & Harari-Betancourt, V. M. (2010). Learning materials reusability in higher education: elements for designing digital collections from a knowledge management perspective. In Proceedings of the ASIST 2010(pp. 1–5). Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.14504701260/full
Rolfe, V. (2012). Open educational resources: staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1063519), 1–13. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14395
Santos, A., McAndrew, P., & Godwin, S. (2008). Open educational resources: new directions for technology-enhanced distance learning in the third millenium.Formamente, 0(October), 1–9. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/26617/
Schaffert, S., & Geser, G. (2008). Open educational resources and practices. eLearning Papers, (February), 1–10. Retrieved from http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/open-educational-resources-and-practices.pdf
Schmidt-Jones, C. (2012). An Open Educational Resource Supports a Diversity of Inquiry-Based Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, (2008). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1141/2074
Schuwer, R., Kreijns, K., & Vermeulen, M. (2014a). Wikiwijs : An unexpected journey and the lessons learned. In OCWC Conference: Open Education for a Multicultural World. Ljubjana: OCW. Retrieved fromhttp://conference.oeconsortium.org/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Paper_22-Wikiwijs1.pdf
Schuwer, R., Kreijns, K., & Vermeulen, M. (2014b). Wikiwijs: An unexpected journey and the lessons learned towards OER. Open Praxis, 6(2), 91–102. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.2.116
Schuwer, R., & Mulder, F. (2009). OpenER, a Dutch initiative in Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 24(1), 67–76. doi:10.1080/02680510802627852
Schuwer, R., Wilson, T., Valkenburg, W. Van, & Lane, A. (2010). Production of OER : a quest for efficiency. In 7th Annual Open Education Conference. Barcelona. Retrieved from http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/handle/10609/5103
Shava, G., & Ndebele, C. (2014). Towards Achieving Quality Distance Education, Challenges and Opportunities: The Case of the Zimbabwe Open University.Journal of Social Sciences, 39(3), 317–330. Retrieved fromhttp://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-39-0-000-14-Web/JSS-39-3-14-Abst-PDF/JSS-39-3-317-14-1553-Ndebele-C/JSS-39-3-317-14-1553-Ndebele-C-Tx%5B8%5D.pdf
Shum, S. B., & Liddo, A. De. (2010). Collective intelligence for OER sustainability. InOpenED2010: Seventh Annual Open Education Conference. Barcelona. Retrieved from http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/handle/10609/5085
Siemens, G. (2003). Why we should share learning resources. E-Learnspace, 29. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/why_we_should_ share.htm
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. E-Learnspace. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca
Smith, M., & Casserly, C. (2006). The Promise of Open Educational Resources.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(5), 8 – 17. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.38.5.8-17
South African Institute for Distance Education. (2013). OER Africa. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oerafrica.org/about-us-2
Swan, A. (2012). Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf
Tarrant, C. (2011). Guide to Open Learning. (E. J. Lepke, Ed.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.iamcorbin.net/articles/openlearning/34-guide-to-open-learning-menu
Timmermann, C. (2013). Life Sciences, Intellectual Property Regimes and Global Justice. Wageningen University. Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/276714
Tosato, P., & Bodi, G. (2011). Collaborative Environments to foster creativity, reuse and sharing of OER. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, Special Ed(Special Edition OER), 1–6. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eurodl.org/materials/special/2011/Tosato_Bodi.htm
Tovar, E., Piedra, N., & Chicaiza, J. (2012). OER development and promotion. Outcomes of an international research project on the OpenCourseWare model.Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(1), 123–141. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jucs.org/jucs_18_1/oer_development_and_promotion/jucs_18_01_0123_0141_tovar.pdf
Tuomi, I. (2005). The future of open source. In M. Wynants & J. Cornelis (Eds.), How Open is the Future?: Economic, Social & Cultural Scenarios inspired by Free & Open-Source Software (pp. 429–459). Brussels University Press. Retrieved fromhttp://flosshub.org/system/files/tuomi3_bookchapter.pdf
Tuomi, I. (2006). Open Educational Resources: What they are and why do they matter Report prepared for the OECD. Retrieved fromhttp://www.meaningprocessing.com/personalPages/tuomi/articles/OpenEducationalResources_OECDreport.pdf
Tuomi, I. (2013). Open Educational Resources and theTransformation of Education.European Journal of Education, 48(1). Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12019/full
Tzikopoulos, A., Manouselis, N., & Vuorikari, R. (2009). An Overview of Learning Object Repositories. In T. Halpin (Ed.), Selected Readings on Database Technologies and Applications. Neumont, USA: IGI. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-098-1
UNESCO. (2011). Guidelines for Open Educational Resources (OER) in Higher Education. Paris & Vancouver: UNESCO – COL. Retrieved fromhttp://www.col.org/resources/publications/Pages/detail.aspx?PID=364
UNESCO. (2012). 2012 Paris OER Declaration. In 2012 World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress, Paris, June 2012. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/index.php?id=64395
UNESCO- Hewlett Foundation. (2002). Open Courseware and Developing Countries: Building a Community. Paris: Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/OpenCourseWareandDevelopingCountries.pdf
Weller, M. (2010). Big and little OER Conference Item. In OpenED2010: Seventh Annual Open Education Conference. Barcelona. Retrieved fromaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/4851/6/Weller.pdf
Weller, M. (2012). The openness-creativity cycle in education-A Perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, 1–10. Retrieved fromhttp://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/02
Wiley, D. (2007). On the Sustainability of Open Educational Resource Initiatives in Higher Education (p. 21). Paris: OECD: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Retrieved from http://www1.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38645447.pdf
Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open Educational Resources: A Review of the Literature. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 787–794. Retrieved fromhttp://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_63
Wiley, D., & Gurrell, S. (2009). A decade of development…. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(1), 11–21. doi:10.1080/02680510802627746
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2009). Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/768
Willems, J., & Bossu, C. (2012). Equity considerations for open educational resources in the localization of education. Distance Education, 33(2), 37–41. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2012.692051
Wilson, T. (2008). New Ways of Mediating Learning: Investigating the implications of adopting open educational resources for tertiary education at an institution in the United Kingdom as compared to one in South Africa. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–19. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/485
Windle, R., Wharrad, H., McCormick, D., Laverty, H., & Taylor, M. (2010). Sharing and reuse in OER: experiences gained from open reusable learning objects in health.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 4, 1–18. Retrieved fromhttp://jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2010-4/html
Wolfenden, F. (2008). The TESSA OER Experience: Building sustainable models of production and user implementation. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2008-3/331
World Bank. (2013). Open Knowledge Repository. Retrieved fromhttps://openknowledge.worldbank.org
Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2011). Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of "affordances" in research on mobile learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 247–258. doi:10.1080/21567069.2011.624168
WSIS. (2003). Declaración de Principios Construir la Sociedad de la Información: un desafío global para el nuevo milenio. Retrieved fromhttp://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop-es.html
Wynants, M., & Cornelis, J. (Eds.). (2005). How Open is the Future?: Economic, Social & Cultural Scenarios inspired by Free & Open-Source Software. Citeseer. Brussels University Press. Retrieved from http://www.wfsf.org/resources/pedagogical-resources/futures-books-online/50-open-how-open-is-the-future/file
|Hits: 845
Dear colleagues,
|Hits: 348
|Hits: 381
MOOCTalk is an annual event organised by guokr started since 2012.
This year, the invited speakers are:
For futher information, please visit http://www.guokr.com/zone/2014mooctalk/
|Hits: 866
The following is a guest post by LIUPing, members of the CC China Mainland Affiliate team and the School of Open community. Below is a description of the 2nd CC China Mainland open educational resources (OER) summer camp (30th June to 8th July 2014) for the children of Luxi Island, a remote island off the coast of China.
Why did we have the 2nd OER Summer Camp?
The summer of 2013 was special for the CC China Mainland team, Wenzhou Medical University and Guokr.com. These three parties co-hosted OER summer camp which was successfully initiated on Luxi Island. For Wenzhou Medical University, the summer camp has already been a part of its routine volunteering activities for five consecutive years. But it's the first time for them to connect such a camp with the CC China Mainland Project. The latter, to their surprise, brought something fresh this time; a real world OER activity in rural China took shape.
The first OER summer camp received great feedback, not only from volunteers of Wenzhou Medical University that participated, but from the officials of Luxi Island, and more importantly, from the students of Luxi Public School.
Can we create some OER courses?
The first successful but not flawless camp greatly encouraged us to hold the second one. We thought there was a lot of room for improvement, especially that more CC-licensed OER should be included. In addition to OER available online, we wondered if we could make some interesting online courses ourselves for the kids within our reach. And based on feedback, "How to make herbarium" was regarded as the most interesting course during the first camp.
What courses did we create?
All preparations went smoothly by volunteers, days before the launch of the camp. Wenzhou Medical University's student center, which provides opportunities for students to start small businesses within the campus, happened to have a photography studio. Undoubtedly, it was chosen to be our "OER course studio" for making videos of the courses. About 12 volunteers participated and 16 different courses were recorded, of which 14 were used, including:
1. The introduction of traffic signs (video)
2. Comprehensive water treatment, namely sewage treatment, flood prevention, drainage, water supply and water saving. The course was concentrated on how to identify water quality (video)
3. Interesting Japanese language (video)
4. Traditional Chinese handwork: stamp, tri-colored glazed pottery of the Tang Dynasty and blue and white porcelain. The courses teach students aged from 11-13, on how to create this handwork.
5. Interesting Traditional Chinese Medicine: introduce some basic knowledge about TCM, which is relevant to students daily lives. (video)
6. Interesting history: the introduction of some historical events which had significant impact on China. (video)
7. Presentation skills: How to give a presentation or host an event. How to present yourself in front of people with confidence. (video)
8. Course for senior citizens on the island: including some basic knowledge of labor contract if any of their family members are immigrant workers in other provinces; living knowledge such as why some vegetables can't be cooked together, etc. (video)
9. Pink ribbon: the course was designed for females on the island by Wenzhou Medical University volunteers. The presenter is a Clinical Medicine Science major student; she introduces relevant knowledge of breast cancer, including how to prevent it from happening. (video)
10. Muscle-bone strengthening exercise: Through proper adjustment in human body and correct method for breath (muscle, bone etc.), the exercise can help to improve blood circulation and the functions of internal organs of the body (heart, spleen, liver, lungs and kidneys). (video)
11. Interesting Oral English: Mr. Percy provides kids with some simple and easy oral English. (video)
12. MOOC from Guokr: How to select good quality fruit. A specially designed course for kids (link)
Feedback from Participants of the 2nd Luxi Summer Camp
Students' comments on the OER summer camp:
CHEN Xinhao, Grade One:
CHEN Yanjie, Grade Four:
MIAO Xiaoting, Grade Four:
ZHENG Ruize, Grade Six:
Volunteers' comments on OER summer camp:
QIN Xu, age 19, major in Law:
PAN Yixiu, age 19, major in Traditional Chinese Medicine:
LIU Hanzhong, age 19, major in rehabilitation:
About the School of Open
The School of Open is a global community of volunteers focused on providing free education opportunities on the meaning, application, and impact of "openness" in the digital age and its benefit to creative endeavors, education, and research. Volunteers develop and run online courses, offline workshops, and real world training programs on topics such as Creative Commons licenses, open educational resources, and sharing creative works. The School of Open is coordinated by Creative Commons and P2PU, a peer learning community for developing and running free online courses.
Resource: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43575
|Hits: 541
|Hits: 713
Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials which are freely available and openly licensed. Repositories of OER (ROER) are platforms that host and facilitate access to these resources. ROER should not just be designed to store this content – in keeping with the aims of the OER movement, they should support educators in embracing open educational practices (OEP) such as searching for and retrieving content that they will reuse, adapt or modify as needed, without economic barriers or copyright restrictions. This paper reviews key literature on OER and ROER, in order to understand the roles ROER are said or supposed to fulfil in relation to furthering the aims of the OER movement. Four themes which should shape repository design are identified, and the following 10 quality indicators (QI) for ROER effectiveness are discussed: featured resources; user evaluation tools; peer review; authorship of the resources; keywords of the resources; use of standardised metadata; multilingualism of the repositories; inclusion of social media tools; specification of the creative commons license; availability of the source code or original files. These QI form the basis of a method for the evaluation of ROER initiatives which, in concert with considerations of achievability and long-term sustainability, should assist in enhancement and development.
Keywords: open educational resources; open access; open educational practice; repositories; quality assurance
(Published: 24 July 2014)
Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2014, 22: 20889 -http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.20889
|Hits: 702
In one of the sessions of Content in Context 2014, OER: The good, the bad, and the reality, Frank Catalano from Intrinsic Strategy who was the moderator of the session had summaried the topic and shared in Edsurge. The opening keynote session was all about OER as seen from three viewpoints: the hands-on OER educator, the long-time education publishing executive, and the edtech company curriculum designer.
In his sharing, he had mentioned that there were three hazards to be cleared, they are:
Click here to read further why he had that conclusion...
|Hits: 511
The LangOER network, consisting of 9 European partners, is a 3-year project (January 2014 - December 2016) co-funded by the European Commission (Lifelong Learning Programme, KA2 action).
The study "Open Educational Resources (OER) in less used languages: a state of the art report" is the first public output of the LangOER network, an ambitious project with highly motivated partners adressing the role of OER in less used European languages which run the risk of being linguistically and culturally marginalized in a fast developing digital world.
This report presents the results of an in-depth investigation and analysis of Open Educational Resources (OER) in 17 less used and also been extended to 23 European languages. The investigation also included a more global overview by using languages such as English, French, and German for reference. The selection of 22 languages in this project is indicative and not exhaustive. The methodology used for this investigation included an international expert survey, LangOER partnership consultation, and stakeholders' events contributing to the evolving understanding of OER in less used languages. A range of resources was
used, most of them available on the social sharing spaces Mendeley and Diigo, freely accessible. This report only presents the current state and offers an indicative list of references.
The results illustrate the diverse landscape while identifying several challenging issues not yet tackled. In particular, the report point out the need to identify quality indicators and issues of specific linguistic concern for further development. This discussion covers topics important for moving the field forward, such as
policies, language barriers, multilingualism and the role of preparation of practitioners as well as practices.
Please click here to download the full report.
Resource: LangOER consortium http://langoer.eun.org/.
|Hits: 526
NTU (National Taiwan University) has a series of MOOCs introduction written in Mandarin. Feel free to read all 24 topics, they are:
Article 1: 三分鐘快速認識MOOCs 3 minutes to learn about MOOCs
Article 2: 從OCW到MOOCs—開放教育資源的發展 From OCW to MOOCs - The development of OER
Article 3: 揭開MOOCs使用者的面紗 Disclosed the veil of MOOCs users
Article 4: 後MOOC時代—百花齊放的線上課程進行模式 Post MOOC era - A variety of online course mode
Article 5: xMOOC的教學特色—延伸、個人化、精熟學習 xMOOC's teaching characteristics - Extension, personalized, mastery learning
Article 6: cMOOC的教學特色—善用科技、連結資源、形成學習網絡 cMOOC's teaching characteristics - The use of technology, resources, forming learning network connection
Article 7: MOOC於西方崛起的發展過程 The development process of MOOC in the West
Article 8: 自數位與線上學習的發展洪流中看MOOC定位 From digital and online learning development look at MOOC's positioning
Article 9: MOOC與學習資料分析 MOOC and learning analytic
Article 10: 課程平台介紹—Coursera Course platfrom introduction - Coursera
Article 11: 輔助平台介紹—果殼網 Supplemetary platfrom introduction - Goukr.com
Article 12: 深度了解大規模線上課程的「滯留」(Retention)與「意圖」(Intention) Retention and intention in MOOCs: in depth
Article 13: 課程平台介紹—edX Course platform - edX
Article 14: 輔助平台介紹—MOOC選課目錄 Supplementary platfrom introdction - MOOC course directory
Article 15: 給MOOC學習者的建議 Suggestions to MOOC's learner
Article 16: 兩岸三地的MOOCs進程 MOOCs in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China
Article 17: 輔助平台介紹—MOOC課程評分與評論 Supplementary platform introduction - MOOC course rating and reviews
Article 18: MOOCs的測驗與評量 MOOCs examination and assessment
Article 19: MOOCs教材的著作權議題 MOOCs textbook and copyright issue
Article 20: 大規模線上開放課程 : 學術圖書館的法律與政策議題 MOOCs: The legal and policy issues in academic libraries
Article 21: 課程平台介紹—Udacity Course platfrom introduction - Udacity
Article 22: MOOCs學習者如何運用課程包裝資訊決定選課 How MOOCs learner choose a course by looking at the course information
Article 23: 課程平台介紹—Udemy Course platfrom introduction - Udemy
Article 24: 給MOOC製作課程團隊的確認清單 Check list for MOOC development team
|Hits: 633
ICDE and the LangOER network in partnership with the Nordic OER network are organizing a workshop for a small group of leading world experts in post-secondary education to be held in Oslo on Monday, 28 April. The event will seek to assess the situation for open educational resource around the globe with particular reference to less used languages.
For other details, please click here.
|Hits: 626
|Hits: 618
Research study by Jane Park and Beck Pitt in year 2013 on School of Open (SOO) courses to find out more about those participating in SOO courses and what kind of impact the courses are having.
Their main areas of focus are:
Here is the link to:
Part 1 http://oerresearchhub.org/2014/03/10/school-of-open-research-findings-part-i/
Part 2 http://oerresearchhub.org/2014/03/14/school-of-open-research-findings-part-ii/
Although the samples are in small scale, but this results are quite interesting to know how the learners reacted. This same questionnaires will be run again on the same four courses during Spring 2014 to produce useful comparative/additional data.
|Hits: 644
These are questions that we at Ellucian ask ourselves every day as we work to help more than 2,300 colleges, universities, state systems, and foundations around the globe thrive in today's dynamic world. We value our collaborative and long-standing relationships with EDUCAUSE and the amazing community that makes it strong. Working together, our collective intelligence will help shape the future of education.
Foreword xi
Introduction 3
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
|Hits: 2784
Following the international regional workshop in March-2013 on developing guidelines on quality assurance for OER, the final T.I.P.S. Guidelines is now published by COL/CEMCA at http://www.cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/TIPS-Shorter_12August2013.pdf . These guidelines will be very useful for prospective authors of OER. The publication is aimed at helping primary and secondary school teachers throughout Asia to create their own OER and share these with other teachers and their students.
|Hits: 2314
Perspectives on Open and Distance Learning: Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective
by Gajaraj Dhanarajan (Editor), David Porter (Editor)
Contributors: Ishan Sudeera Abeywardena, Alvie Simonette Q. Alip, Patricia B. Arinto, Venkataraman Balaji, Tian Belawati, Roel Cantada, William D. Dar, Daryono, Gajaraj Dhanarajan, Minh Do, Sreedhar Ganapuram, Primo G. Garcia, V. Bharathi Harishankar, Uma Kanjilal, Asha Kanwar, Yong Kim, Mangala Sunder Krishnan, Udan Kusmawan, Li Yawan, Li Ying, Choo-Khai Lim, Naveed A. Malik, David Porter, Joane V. Serrano, Alex Jean-wah Wong, Tsuneo Yamada, Kin-sun Yuen
Publishers: COL, OER Asia (January 2013)
Categories: Monographs
Format: Acrobat Reader
Download (4,397 KB)
Higher education has experienced phenomenal growth in all parts of Asia over the last two decades — from the Korean peninsula in the east to the western borders of Central Asia. This expansion, coupled with a diversity of delivery and technology options, has meant that more and more young Asians are experiencing tertiary education within their own countries. In South, South East and Far East Asia especially, universities, polytechnics, colleges and training institutes with a variety of forms, structures, academic programmes and funding provisions have been on an almost linear upward progression.
Notwithstanding this massive expansion, equitable access is still a challenge for Asian countries. There is also concern that expansion will erode quality. The use of digital resources is seen as one way of addressing the dual challenges of quality and equity. Open educational resources (OER), free of licensing encumbrances, hold the promise of equitable access to knowledge and learning. However, the full potential of OER is only realisable with greater knowledge about OER, skills to effectively use them and policy provisions to support their establishment in Asian higher education.
This book, the result of an OER Asia research project hosted and implemented by the Wawasan Open University in Malaysia, with support from Canada's International Development Research Centre, brings together ten country reports and ten case studies on OER in the Asian region that highlight typical situations in each context. China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam all receive extensive treatment, as do the multi-regional initiatives of the Virtual Academy for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
While interest in and the production, distribution and use of OER are still very much in the early stages of development in most parts of Asia, OER's potential value to improve the quality of curriculum, content and instruction, facilitate academic collaboration and enhance equitable access to knowledge resources cannot be overstated.
The 25 contributors to this book bring an impressive level and breadth of expertise, innovation and dedication to researching, developing and advocating for OER. Through a combination of quantitative studies and qualitative analyses, they provide valuable, instructive information and insights from throughout Asia. Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective demonstrates that OER development is thriving in Asia — in different economies, amongst different types of stakeholders and with varied approaches to open licensing.
The diversity and richness of the contexts and approaches make this publication an important advocacy tool for promoting the use of OER.
|Hits: 4044
Abeywardena, I. S., Dhanarajan, G., & Chan, C.S. (2012). Searching and Locating OER: Barriers to the Wider Adoption of OER for Teaching in Asia. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective on Policies and Practice, 19-21 September 2012, Penang, Malaysia.
|Hits: 4662
Abeywardena, I. S., & Dhanarajan, G. (2012). Open Educational Resources in Asia. Proceedings of the Symposium on E-learning and Open Educational Resources: Practices and new initiatives organised by the Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK), 18th April 2012, Hong Kong. Recording and slides available at http://oer.ouhk.edu.hk/2012.php
|Hits: 2838
Open content licensing for educators is a free online workshop designed for educators and students who want to learn more about open education resources, copyright, and creative commons licenses. The workshop is open for all members of the OER Asia community.
When: 3 -14 December 2012 (Registrations are open)
Where: Online
Cost: Free
Registrations: Register today to reserve your seat
Share the gift of knowledge: Invite a friend or colleague to join you or distribute the OCL4Ed poster at your institution.
|Hits: 1562
This list of free e-books is compiled and updated by Prof Paul Kawachi, OUC / Editor Asian Journal of Distance Education. It is quite a comprehensive list and is updated regularly.
|Hits: 2335
Four million creative commons videos on YouTube are just waiting to be reused, remixed, and reimagined—more videos than anywhere else in the world.
Full article at: http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2012/07/heres-your-invite-to-reuse-and-remix-4.html?m=1
from Cathy Casserly, CEO of Creative Commons (CC)
|Hits: 2292
Page 1 of 2
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>