Presentation on theme: "Alejandro Armellini, Samuel Nikoi, Richard Mobbs, Gabi Witthaus (Members of the OTTER Project Team) Learning Futures Festival: 12 Jan, 12pm."— Presentation transcript:
Alejandro Armellini, Samuel Nikoi, Richard Mobbs, Gabi Witthaus (Members of the OTTER Project Team) Learning Futures Festival: 12 Jan, 12pm
Question Does your institution have a reward scheme aimed at encouraging open and free sharing of teaching resources? a.Yes b.No c.Not sure
Question Have you been formally recognised or rewarded by your institution for sharing your teaching materials openly and freely with colleagues and/or the wider world? a.Yes b.No
Which of the following statements best reflects your views on reward and recognition associated with OERs? A. Academics should produce OERs regardless of any reward or recognition associated with this contribution B. Academics should not be expected to produce OERs unless appropriate recognition and rewards for them are in place C. Neither of the above: I’ll make my views clear in the chat box or orally
Please indicate with a TICK if you agree with the following statement or a CROSS if you don’t : “ Higher education is facing a number of challenges: globalisation, an aging society, growing competition between higher educational institutions both nationally and internationally, and rapid technological development….OERs may also be a sound strategy for individual institutions to meet them”. Source: Giving Knowledge for free pg. 9. found at:
Reward and recognition by Dr Samuel Nikoi – OER Evaluator
Research output vs. teaching materials “The issues in teaching content sharing may be very different from those in the research papers open archives area, and the two should not be conflated, either from an institutional services point of view of from a cultural/human perspective” Source: WMSHARE final report pg. 13.
Models of sharing? Open CC licence Community of Practice Subject based Source: Good intentions report. found at:
74.6 % - within departments 10.8 %- with teaching team 8.5 %-with subject specialists outside institution 19.2% - Don’t share Is this a case of the Open handed vs. tight-fisted? Sharing: evidence from research Source:
Why do people share? Recognition by peers Publicity and visibility within the academic community Potential for collaboration with academics in other institutions around the world Potential for commercialising a version of the OER Source: Giving Knowledge for free pg found at:
Why do people share? 51.2%- to improve teaching 48.2% - to increase student motivation 35.1% - kudos 33.9% - preservation of materials 33.3% - a link to university’s VLE 31.0% - link to research 21.4% - positive experience of using existing materials 17.3% - colleagues are contributing 13.1% - compulsory 3.0% - financial rewards Bates, Melanie, Loddington, Steve, Manuel, Sue and Oppenheim, Charles(2007)'Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning',ALT-J,15:1,67 — 82
What’s in it for me? …there is reluctance to share for altruistic reasons. Good intentions report pg. 15. found at:
43.0% - lack of awareness of repositories 31.3 % - not enough time to prepare materials outside of institution 28.0 % - materials are already in a VLE 27.6 % - lack of time to contribute 26.2 % -Other reasons Lack of confidence in own materials No departmental policy Lack of support Concern over who owns the copyright Bates, M. Loddington, S. Manuel, S. and Oppenheim, C. (2007). Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning. ALT-J, 15: What are the reasons for non- contribution?
The institution-centric view of the world and their subject-discipline is one of the reasons for low levels of sharing amongst the HE community. This is in contrast to the FE community which has national frameworks to support curricula and assessment”. Good intentions report pg. 9 found at: Reasons for not sharing/contributing OERs?
What will motivate future contribution? 40.9% - if support were freely available 38.5% - not needing to maintain the links to items contributed 34.2% - Departmental directive 33.7% - Institutional directive 32.1% - receiving a pay award Bates, Melanie, Loddington, Steve, Manuel, Sue and Oppenheim, Charles(2007)'Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning',ALT-J,15:1,67 — 82
What financial or non-financial reasons would encourage the greatest level of contribution? 44.9% - nomination for a salary increment 36.3% - lump sum 29.5% - money to spend on a teaching & learning project 29.1% - satisfaction of contributing 57.0% - An article in an internal publication 39.8% - Possibility of doing pedagogical research 37.9% - Nomination for an internal teaching prize Bates, Melanie, Loddington, Steve, Manuel, Sue and Oppenheim, Charles(2007)'Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning',ALT-J,15:1,67 — 82
OER Showcase Institution Merlot :http://www.merlot.org/ MIT OCW :http://ocw.mit.edu/
OER Showcase Institution Open University :http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/ Portals OCW Consortium :http://www.ocwconsortium.org UNESCO OER Community JorumOpen19 th January, 2010
Open discussion on reward and recognition for making teaching materials freely and openly available
Resources Rights and rewards project Good intentions report Giving knowledge for free 9497_1_1_1_1,00.html 9497_1_1_1_1,00.html