Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•595 views
The DELILA project aims to promote open sharing of information literacy and digital literacy teaching materials between higher education institutions. The project partners, LSE and University of Birmingham, conducted an audit of existing materials and mapped them to relevant frameworks. Materials were then converted to open educational resources and deposited in institutional repositories customized to improve accessibility and reuse of the resources. The project helped model best practices for sharing materials and addressed challenges around intellectual property and maintaining updated resources.
![Project overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (17)
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material
Ähnlich wie Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material (20)
Mehr von Centre for Distance Education
Mehr von Centre for Distance Education (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material
- 1. Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material Dr Jane Secker, DELILA Project Manager, LSE j.secker@lse.ac.uk @jsecker #DELILA
- 8. FutureLab’s Digital Literacy model http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/handbooks/Handbook1706
- 17. Customisation of IR (cont…)
- 24. Other questions?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- introduction
- Say hello to Jane! Nancy on maternity leave and Ann-Marie taking over. Came out of chatting about Carillo with Jane.
- Developing Educators Learning and Information Literacy for Accreditation Most HE institutions run some kind of PGCert and there is a place for OERs within them, as they use reasonably generic material and sharing material would save duplicated effort. DELILA aims to provide materials for this purpose using training material from LSE and the University of Birmingham. The effect of this will be a better informed and skilled teaching community that in turn will pass on knowledge and skills to HE students. We know that other countries are further ahead with this than us, for example ANTS (Animated Tutorial Sharing) and we’re not trying to reinvent the wheel but we want to see what works best in the UK and this is one way of sharing material. Why UoB and LSE – similar enough to work well together but different enough to highlight best practice etc - Compare LSE and Bham – at LSE the Teaching and Learning Centre run the PGCert, it contains 5 modules – 3 modules are needed for Associate level and 5 modules are required for Fellowship of HEA. At Bham, the Centre for Learning and Academic Development run the PGCert, there are 2 associate modules that make 60 credits overall – 20 credits are required for Associate and the full 60 are required for Fellow of HEA.
- Work packages 1-8, introduce briefly. Up to WP5, highlight that reports for each WPs are going on blog – outputs page.
- What is UKPSF Am doing a PGCert – experience Who in audience knows about UKPSF? Explain what it is – standard used for HEA accredited courses have to meet OER best practice – CORRE framework. Created as part of the OTTER ( Open, Transferable and Technology-enabled Educational Resources ) project at Leicester University Futurelab DL framework – Jane discovered as LSE use DL more than UoB currently. Not as comprehensive at the 7 pillars but very useful nonethless. We concluded that the UKPSF is underpinned with IL and DL but its not explicit - they are reviewing it to hopefully make it more so!
- On blog so can see the egs under WP2
- Very comprehensive spreadsheet of LOs which was useful throughout the project and was the foundation for all other WPs so crucial it was done methodically and carefully. Volume and location of material – audit undertaken at item level but proved to be very time consuming Getting release of material signed off by Uni Topics covered, eg citing and referencing, copyright, using eJournals for research, etc were chosen to help address all the SCONUL 7 pillars LSE have IL and DL due to the Centre for learning technology being involved in DELILA, and Bham only has IL as the team who create DL were not involved. Gap analysis showed no obvious gaps in terms of topics covering the 7 pillars – difficulty arose with DL because there is no single agreed DL framework. It was subsequently decided to use the FutureLab (2010) model of DL as the DL equivalent of the 7 pillars. Useful internally as now we know what exists and means we can review material, check it’s in the most useful place etc. Conclusion – showed a lot of high quality learning resources had been created at both institutions. Found we needed to kee track of more data than originally planned to make later WP easier (eg what format LO is in, whether IL or DL, which PSF aspects met, number of hours a student would take to complete an LO) and this data could also be used to improve the metadata when the LO was finally imported in Jorum.
- Review content against UKSPF (explain), SCONUL 7 pillars (explain) and OER best practice (ensure appropriateness for PGCert participants and re-usability by others) Aim to enhance value of material by increasing it’s opportunity and likelihood of re-use. Created 4 worked examples that could be (or in LSEs case already were) embedded in the PGCert Difficulty of categorising DL as no clear model equivalent to Sconul 7 pillars hence decided to use FutureLab model of Digital Literacy. DL framework not as established as the S7P and a diff model
- Learning curve as we have never converted OERs – OTTER website very useful. Also quite time consuming, eg trying to find widely accessible technologies IPR issues – most content had some 3rd party content, usually screenshots of proprietary databases. JISC has provided some guidance of copyright clearance of OERs. Contact legal advisors to ensure openness in line with Institutional policy. UoB people involved at this stage – Legislation Manager in LS, Director of Library Services, Director of Academic Services and PVC for Education. Verbal agreement has been given to make the materials in DELILA openly available via our IR and OpenJorum. Project has opened up further debate with new PVCs for Research and Education around IPR Review content using relevant parts of CORRE framework - Use audit spreadsheet to identify content needing adaptation and to what extent. CORRE (Content, re-use and Re-Purposing, Evidence and Openness) framework was developed by an OER Phase 1 project OTTER – provides an overview of stages to go through when converting content into open content. Lso seeks to address pedagogical, legal, technical, institutional and socio-cultural aspects of converting material to OERs. 4 stages of process: Content – materials gathered, credit weight recorded and assessed (WP 1 and 2) Openness – legal, pedagogic and technical aspects of process, IPR clearance Re-use/Re-purpose – validation process where material achieves actual OER status Evidence – assess the value and usefulness of an OER by tracking its use. Building evidence gathering process – people who reuse DELILA material include further information about how they themselves are using them. Stage 2 of CORRE framework: Rights clearance – copyright, IPR and licensing Transformation for usability – decoupling, scaffolding, meshing, sequencing, editing Formatting for accessibility – conversion, standardisation, metadata, pedagogical wrap around Third party content – screenshots most common, usually third party content; logos from institutions were cleared for use; used a 1-4 scale for reusability with 1 being material with no external content and with institutional permission to 4 being material made entirely of external content and having no institutional permission. Dealing with screenshots – mostly illustrative rather than pedagogically necessary so can easily be removed and a placeholder inserted – easier than contacting the publisher for permission to use the screenshots of their databases. Placeholder would explain what was previously there allowing the person who reuses the resources to add their won, more meaningful, screenshot in place. Add CC information to document property where possible (do this using Microsoft Research which allows a Creative Commons link. Check accessibility (add heading levels etc – recommend this is added to the creation workflow), add metadata including rights info, author, date of creation, keywords etc. convert Word to any other formats for re-use eg Open office Word etc. Metadata - HEA to provide tags which can be used for each section of the UKPSF so if looking for material for a specific part of UKPSF can search by tag and find appropriate material. Embedding metadata using file properties and CC licence.
- The customisation of local repositories and development of appropriate metadata and tags will increase the usability of these facilities and make it easier to find and download existing high quality content. The UoB DELILA content will be hosted in the ePapers area of the UBIRA service. This is in the process of being upgraded to the latest version of the ePrints software (v 3.2.5). This version, together with some tweaks from our technical team (it is open source software), is producing some new features particularly useful for displaying DELILA content : Complex content (eg. Multi-page Web sites incl. images) can be uploaded as zip files Thumbnails of PDFs and office documents - including doc and ppt formats – are generated automatically. The option of using plugins to display ppt/doc/pdf via embedded viewers – although we’re not so keen on this, as it may have implications for accessibility, browser compatibility, usage statistics, etc. ePrints allows ‘abstract pages’ (the ‘eprint’ pages of title, abstract, metadata and links to files) to be customized with different layouts based on attributes such as eprint type. For example, manuscripts are displayed horizontally with only a subset of the – often hundreds of – pages visible ( http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/105/ ).
- Deposit work flows from JorumOpen, Birmingham and LSE will be identified and used by team members to deposit material in repositories Applications such as SWORD – a small working group which is part of the JISC Digital Repositories Programme - will be investigated by repository staff at both institutions and a briefing written to indicate how these time saving processes are applicable to project content. If SWORD or harvesting is to be used, repository staff to implement use for direct upload from local repositories to JorumOpen If no direct depositing can be done, project team to deposit content in JorumOpen. If everyone can agree on tags and metadata then IL stuff would be easily findable in Jorum. Would encourage people to use our tags which are based on S7P (what are they?) Easier to find if we’re all using the same language.
- External evaluators based at UCL as they were doing a similar project and had a good insight into the type of thing we were working on. Critical friend requested 4 worked examples so she could review them impartially. Very useful exercise. Sandra Griffiths recommended an evaluator for WP8 Validation process in WP3 and 4 – ensure materials met specified aspects of the UKSPF and could be categorised as digital and/or IL according to the chosen frameworks. Jane created an evaluation template which is based on Kirkpatrick’s 3 levels of evaluation (more notes on this). Proposing this template, is circulated for feedback (Jane has shared with IL group and got comments back – JS will add a field about interactive/engaging it was as a response to feedback? Check this)
- Blog – useful to keep project team updated as well as interested external parties. Link to presentation will be added to blog asap. Conferences – currently accepted to speak at LILAC(!), OER11 (and where is LA talking – check) Journal papers – papers written for Journal of Information Literacy and ALISS Quarterly One day workshop at UoB – give details
- Have permission to add OERs to ur repository for this project but Uni owns rights generally and we have no clear view of sharing these types of resources CC licences – we agreed to use 3.0 but plug-in for automatic integration into word/PPT automatically attributes 2.5 Moving forward – Shadow DELILA, UoB planning to re-use some of LSE’s DL material
- Found material all over the place – recommend a single place where all IL and DR is kept (IR?) Would recommend making OER compatibility part of authors’ workflow If you’re planning on releasing material as OERs then keep the audit process and documentation in mind as a standard procedure to record teaching material creation. Ask team members to submit their best training for OER conversion to spread the workload