In case you couldn’t make it, here are the slides from today’s presentation at the Open Education conference. All feedback welcome!
We now have our first video content available through OER World Map! You can review the entries at the following URLs:
Open Educational Resources in Africa
NOVA’s OER-Based Associate Degree Project
We hope to add more stories in this way over the coming months. If you have a video relating to OER that you would like to share with the community then get in touch.
Content published on YouTube with a licence that permits sharing can easily be repurposed for the map in this way using the embed code provided in the sharing menu.
Since most of our team members are somehow connected to the library world, one of the first things we wanted to do, when we started phase II of the project, was to define a clear collection policy for the OER World Map, which should define which data to collect and which not. A clear scope, so we thought, would be especially important for a project like the World Map, since trying to collect too much often ends in collecting nothing right.
We consider ourself to be dedicated to Openness, which means that we support open licenses, develop open source software and even do most parts of our project communication openly on GitHub. Therefore our initial approach to define a collection policy was to restrict the OER World Map to entries, which are related to ‘real OER’, which according to my understanding meant in Creative Commons terminology CC BY, CC BY-SA and also CC BY-NC licenses and equivalents (though another strong opinion in our team argued that NC was no ‘real OER’ according to the Open Definition).
Discussing this issue occasionally, we finally came to the point that keeping this strict focus could not be maintained and that we had to loosen our collection policy. Some of the reasons for this were,
- that also gratis services (=services, which provide free, but not openly licensed materials) offer some value for situations, where reuse is not needed,
- that the gratis services of today may become the open services of tomorrow,
- that the focus on licensing does not really fit for other things than OER collections. For example focussing on licenses only does not help very much to evaluate adequately a project focussing on developing open practises.
- that otherwise openness has to be decided on before adding a resource to the map, which might raise practical problems.
- it’s a rather paradox to build a service on open education with a very closed collection policy.
Though being based on good reason, we nevertheless felt that this decision challenged our initial goal to use the OER World Map as a tool to support ‘real openness’. Our solution to this dilemma was to develop an ‘Openness Indicator’, which would allow users to easily see how open a service is. By doing so, we believe that it is possible to be open and flexible as far as our collection scope is concerned, without losing focus on openness.
When we began thinking about how an ‘Openness Indicator’ could look like, our initial focus was to keep it as simple as possible so that it could easily be applied by OER World Map editors. We therefore came up with a very simple structure: three levels of openness, based only on the chosen license. The basic idea was to design the indicator similar to traffic lights, green for very open services, yellow for fairly open services and red for hardly open services.
While we were still thinking in this direction, we found that a special challenge was that we wanted to decide on the openness of a whole collection and not on the openness of an individual resource. It is easy to look up the license of a single resource, but how should it be possible to judge the openness of whole collections? In case a repository has a clear licensing policy, e.g. by stating that all included contents have to be licensed CC BY, this is quite easy. But according to our experience, this is rather the exception in the world of OER, where most repositories include heterogeneous licensed material.
Finally Adrian came up with the solution, which looked something like this:
- Green: all resources are licensed under an open license (CC 0, CC BY, CC BY-SA).
- Yellow: Some or all resources are licensed under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-SA
- Red: All resources are licensed with ND-license or have no license indication at all.
Using this approach we found it was possible to combine the question of different levels of openness with the question of internal license heterogeneity, while abiding by the vision of a simple three colour scheme.
But again things turned out to be more complex than that. Rob was the first to express concerns that a simple three colour scheme might appear too offensive for some, while at the same time oversimplifying the topic. This concerns rang in the next level of development of the Openness Indicator. But the real breakthrough came when Pat Lockley from solvonauts joined the discussion. Actually it was him who hinted us to the “HowOpenIsIt?” Open Access Spectrum (OAS) developed by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) in cooperation with the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA).
OAS, in its own words, “moves the conversation from ‘Is It Open […]?’ to ‘How Open is it?’ and illustrates a nuanced continuum of more versus less open to enable users to compare and contrast publications and policies across a grid of clearly defined components related to readership, reuse, copyright, author and automatic posting, and machine readability.” We found this approach so appealing, that we instantly wanted to reuse it for the OER World Map. But soon we had to find out that, once again, things are not so easy, since the OAS, being developed for Open Access Journals, does not fit for OER-repositories for several reasons:
In the ‘reader rights’ component there are several points which refer to the length of an embargo period. In the field of Open Access it is common that new issues are available only for journal subscribers at the beginning and become open respectively free after an embargo period of several months. This does not seem to fit to OER. At the same time this dimension does not ask for compulsory registration, which arguably is a restriction of the access rights of the reader and can be found occasionally in some OER services.
The ‘reuse rights’ dimension introduces very similar levels of openness as introduced above, but does not give any answer to the question how to handle license heterogeneity. Probably this is because consistent license policies are much more common in OA-journals, than they are for OER repositories.
The ‘copyright’ dimension seemingly does not fit to OER without modification, if at all. This component mainly deals with the question, if the copyright is held by the author or the publisher. Since commercial publishers are still the exception in the field of OER, this section will make no sense in most cases. Within the field of OER, especially within Higher Education, it actually could be more interesting to ask if the copyright is hold by the author or by the higher education institution, which employs her. Though this analogy seems to be quite interesting, I`m not sure, if it really makes a difference for the openness of a repository. As long as it’s open licensed, I would argue, it does not matter, who holds the copyright.
Also the ‘Author posting rights’ and the ‘Automatic posting’ dimension seem to be closely related to phenomena typical for (and restricted to) Open Access Journals. While the former refers to the question, how preprints are handled, the latter refers to the question, if resources are automatically posted to other repositories.
Last but not least the machine readability dimension is quite interesting and certainly makes sense to be applied to OER as well. Nevertheless the dimension does not refer to open formats of the resources, which is frequently considered to be quite important for the openness of a resource. Also it does not include the use of open source software, which might be an interesting aspect, when talking about the Openness of a service.
All in all we concluded, that we cannot adapt the OAS without major adoption for OER repositories. We therefore started defining an indicator, which reuses OAS dimensions as far as possible. An initial version can be found here. We will describe its structure and fields in one of our next blog posts. We believe that the Openness Indicator should be discussed by a wider audience and therefore look forward to receive your comments and questions on this important topic!
Following on from Felix’s recent post about the technical development that has gone into producing v0.2 of OER World Map, I’m writing to announce the official launch of the latest iteration. By the time you read this a whole host of new functionality will have been added to the site.
Firstly – and most obviously – we now have a map that can be browsed and explored more meaningfully. Several node types have been incorporated and added to the map, with basic reporting available at the country level for users, projects, organisations and services. I think everyone on the team feels happy to have reached the stage where we could move beyond a holding homepage and publish what we have put together so far.
There’s only a small amount of data included in this version, which is mostly to test functionality. As we add more data to the map in future releases these fundamental types will be used to build up a summary of OER activity in different parts of the world. We already have a a lot of datasets available to us and are in the process of prioritising these and cleaning the data. A more detailed account of OER activity is provided in the form of ‘stories‘ written by members of the OER community. These capture the experiences of OER practitioners in their own words and demonstrate the real impact that OER is having.
We’re always interested in collecting more stories, and we expect to release several new stories in the coming weeks so keep coming back. You can also use this version to see whether your country has been assigned a country champion. Champions act as regional points of contact and curators of content. If you’re interested in acting as a champion for the project in your area, get in touch.
We also now have static pages explaining what the project is about; how our legal and privacy policies work; and an FAQ page which attempts to answer some fundamental questions about the project.
As ever, we remain interested in your feedback! You can comment below or write to us. To get involved in the project, consider:
- Becoming a country champion
- Sharing your OER story
- Raising local awareness of the project in your organisation
Helo ffrindiau OER, a chyfarchion o Gaerdydd yng Nghymru (DU)! Here are the slides from today’s presentation by myself and Philipp at the OER15 conference in Cardiff, in Wales (UK). They provide a snapshot of the current progress of the project and we also managed to collect our first examples of user stories. You can access the list of stories (and add your own) at http://tinyurl.com/oermap.
The recording of the session will also be made available, but in the meantime here are some thoughts I picked up in the discussion:
- Some people prefer to have some suggestions provided for the structure and length of a ‘story’
- Some people want to embed HTML links in their story
- Adding a word limit might be helpful for some because it makes the task more manageable
- The task of curating stories in multiple languages was identified as a risk for the project
- Any online form for collecting stories needs to be protected from spam
- There is interest in the alternative (non-map) forms of visualization – it might be good to sketch some of these out
- There may remain issues around the internationalisation of the platform
- Emails may lack persistence as a grounding for the map contributions
- There remains interest in an OER World Map but the important thing from an uptake point of view is the perception that the platform has some permanence and will be maintained in the future
Today, myself and Felix are representing the OER World Map project in Sausalito, California this week at the meeting of grantees of The Hewlett Foundation. It’s been great to get the chance to connect with some of the key players in the OER world and exchange ideas about the future aspirations of the movement. The conference has included lots of group activities as well as some interesting speakers, and as part of the proceedings there is an unconference session which includes time for delegates to come and speak about the OER World Map project and tell us what they would like from the system. We’ve been joined by, among others, Patrick McAndrew, Susan D’Antoni, Fred Mulder and Tel Amiel for stimulating discussions on the possibilities. Susan provided some background on the project and its origin in the 2012 consultation she organised. Many OER practitioners at the time complained that it was hard to know about OER initiatives and activities taking place near them, and so the map was conceived as a way of sharing this information.
Here are some of the take away points and reflections from the session:
- What is the correct balance between human curation and automatic collection of data? (It’s worth noting that the privacy laws in Germany may restrict some of the automatically harvested data that it is possible to publish on the map)
- Country champions – can we use the Creative Commons network to identify and co-ordinate our country champions? (They could also be specially identified as CC champions on the map.)
- When will there be something more on offer through the map? It was hoped that we would have something in place before this meeting and by the time of OER15 and OE Global next month we are hopeful that organisations and services will be added to the map.
- How do we help the person who is looking for OER? Repositories
- Connecting OER expertise around the world
- How do we identify the core audience? Are they OER advocates who want to improve the scope and range of what they do and the connections they have?
- What kind of information can we provide to policymakers?
- Including stories on the map – communicating the messages from around the world
- Put yourself on the map, share your story – this idea was very popular with the discussants, especially in light of yesterday’s presentation on communication
- Emphasis on the visual: talking heads, video content, conversational style
- Focusing on user stories provides greater focus country champions – and could also improve the long term sustainability of the project beyond its current funding cycle
- We can start collecting these stories now! Can we start with the ‘Super 7’ Hewlett grantees? These are expert stories about the impact of OER in their own contexts and already have a pitch of appropriate size
- What kind of format? a word limit (500? 1000?), at least one picture, and a location
- From these stories we can extract the next priorities
- Exercising editorial control by making sure that people send their stories by email
- After telling stories and making connections between people, what is the next most important user case? A calendar of events? Services?
- What does OER Commons do with the data that they have?
- How will we deal with stories that are not written in English (or German)? The feeling in the room is that people should publish in their own language if they prefer and Google Translate is used to check basic content and country champions used where possible. Use of native languages will support regional conversations, such as around Latin America.
- Activity / lack of activity can be a fundamental category that is easily understood