Stakeholder
|
Barrier
|
Enabler
|
Possible Benefits
|
Teachers/academic staff |
Not all teaching staff are aware of the benefits of releasing or using OERs
|
Information and support (e.g. from the Jorum Community Bay)
Awareness activities - workshops, guidance
|
Enhanced reputation
Improved quality
Peer feedback and new contacts
|
|
Time is a significant issue particularly when re-purposing existing materials
|
Institutional support and acknowledgement of time needed to re-purpose materials
Technical support and guidance from central teams
|
Improved quality and checks re legality of content
|
|
Skills/competencies - a whole range of new skills may be needed (technical and pedagogical).
|
Training and/or extra support form central teams
Information and support from the Jorum Community Bay
Incorporating OER release into accreddited teacher training
|
Additional skills and experience for staff
Balanced skillsets across institution
|
|
Quality - many staff are concerned about quality in relation to technical issues (eg. recording quality) as well as opening their learning materials to outside scrutiny - some are concerned that someone may repurpose their content to a low standard and will reflect badly on them
|
Reassurance, training and support for Instituional managers and support teams
Staged release - degrees of openness
Ensure clear attribution information is available in the licence
|
Increased quality of learning materials across instituion.
Enhanced reputation.
|
|
Legal issues - still a significant real and perceived barrier. Existing materials may contain materials that can't be released openly.
|
Information, training and support.
Creative Commons Licences
|
Increased knowldege.
Clarity re attribution and potential use options.
Creator can control types of use.
|
Learning support |
Technical challenges - particularly choices around content packaging, branding, version control
|
Dialogue across the instituion and decisions supported by strategic and policy documents
Advice and support from JISC CETIS and institutions with existing experience
|
Clear guidelines across the institution
Increased awareness and understanding
|
|
Quality issues - central teams often have to package content on behalf of teaching teams with a range of quality issues (technical and pedagocigal)
|
Institutional committment to quality
Guidleines for course teams to support production of high quality content
|
Increased quality of learning materials
Enhanced reputation
|
|
Metadata and retrieval - assigning appropriate metadata is still a challenging issue although utilising social software/web 2.0 services can help with retrieval.
|
Staged metadata creation through clear and efficient workflows
Tagging
|
Enhanced retrieval of content for all stakeholders
|
|
Hosting - where to deposit the content which in turn is affected by issues such as version control, branding, etc.
|
Decisions and guidance on where to deposit
Mandating deposit within Institutional repository
Mandating deposit within national repositories such as JorumOpen
Ensuring that items are retrievable from range of sources
Use of Web 2.0 facilities to support retrieval - RSS feeds
|
Clarity for depositors
Enhanced retrieval
|
|
Legal issues - trying to package or release content that contains material that can't be released for legal reasons - due to previous licencing restrictions or use of materials not owned by the teacher. Some institutions may have a very 'risk averse' approach.
|
Clear support and guidance across all faculties and teaching teams
Releasing smaller chunks of content that doesnt depend on illegal content
|
Reduction in amount of illegal material being used in teaching
Informed staff
Time saving once staff are informed and trained
|
Management |
Understanding the value and benefits of openly releasing their learning and teaching materials when concerned about competitors and ensuring student enrolment figures
|
Convincing senior managers of the benefits for institutions
Getting key senior champions on board
Including OER release in strategic and policy decisions and documents
|
Marketisation opportunities - showcase of courses and high quality content Enhanced reputation
Increased enrollments
|
|
Institution wide approach - HE instituions may not have culture or mechanisms to support institution wide dialogue which is needed for OER initiatives
|
Develop new partnerships within institutions
Create mechanisms for cross faculty communication, practice sharing
Case studies to share across the institution to illustrate approaches and benefits
Mandates
|
Joined up approaches
|
|
Competition - institutions may find it difficult to consider revealling their course content if it undermines a particular strength
|
Point to evidence that OER release encourages enrollment and offers marketing opportunities
|
Quality materials showcased
Increased enrollment
Higher profile globally
|
|
Managing resources - existing mechanisms for managing learning and teaching materials (such as closed VLE systems) may mean that institutions do not know what they have, or what quality or legal issues may arise if they are made more open
|
Linking VLEs to institutional repositories
Taking an institution-wide approach to support faculties/departments
Providing guidelines on deposit, metadata, formats, etc.
|
Increased visability of all learning resources (and therefore likely positive impact on quality)
Opportunities to share across departments
Reduction in duplication for generic materials
|
|
Uneven development due to subject discipline focus and cultures - some departments may be more inclined to openess and some may have been more experimental with new technologies
|
Developing case studies of good practice to share within institution
Developing guidelines that are sensitive to subject discipline differences
Utilise support of Academy Subject Centres and other communities of practice/professional bodies
Utilise examples from outside the institution
Accept that uneven development is likely.
|
Supporting disciplines as appropiate to need
Enables a staged approach and encourages development of champions
|
Communities of Practice (CoP)
|
Institutional practices - many teachers are members of an institution which may already have guidelines, policies and restrictions on what and where a teacher can openly release
|
Sharing good institutional practices with other community members
Sharing good community practices with institutions
|
Encourage good practice
|
|
Legal issues - there may be a perception that legal issues are less of a barrier when sharing within communities
|
Ensure that community members still follow institutional guidelines, particularly when/if the institution owns the copyright
|
Less content released that contravenes copyright law
|
|
Ownership - not all teachers own the teaching materials they produce as they may have a contract that gives the institution ownership - this may restrict what teachers can release within communities. |
Follow institutional guidelines re quality, legality, branding
Obtain institutional agreement re deposit outside the institutional repository
|
Clarity re ownesrhip
|
|
Community agreements - the complexities of getting all parties to agree to particular aspects (legal, quality, metadata, branding) can be very time consuming |
Lightweight agreements that are not restrictive
Clear management, support and guidelines
Obtain support from some central agency (such as Academy Subject Centres, Professional bodies
|
Increased particpation
|
|
Hosting - communities that cross institutional boundaries need some mechanism for bringing the resources together |
Community of Practice sharing places (wiki's, forums, social networking sites, Jorum Community Bay)
Subject repositories/spaces
National repositories such as JorumOpen
Utilising existing CoP mechanisms
|
Community members know where to go for resources
Resources supported by focus on practice - information, support and dialogue
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.