Appendix 7: Evaluation Framework

Similar documents
DICE - Final Report. Project Information Project Acronym DICE Project Title

Davidson College Library Strategic Plan

Researcher Development Assessment A: Knowledge and intellectual abilities

University of Toronto

WP 2: Project Quality Assurance. Quality Manual

University Library Collection Development and Management Policy

GALICIAN TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS ON THE USABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE ODS PORTAL

1 Use complex features of a word processing application to a given brief. 2 Create a complex document. 3 Collaborate on a complex document.

THE ST. OLAF COLLEGE LIBRARIES FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE

Collections, Technical Services & Scholarly Communications

CORE CURRICULUM FOR REIKI

Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Plan (SECP)

OCR LEVEL 3 CAMBRIDGE TECHNICAL

Submission of a Doctoral Thesis as a Series of Publications

Assessment Pack HABC Level 3 Award in Education and Training (QCF)

Meeting of the Senatus Researcher Experience Committee to be held on Thursday, 27 May 2010 at 2.15 p.m. in the Lord Provost Elder Room, Old College

Activities, Exercises, Assignments Copyright 2009 Cem Kaner 1

ICDE SCOP Lillehammer, Norway June Open Educational Resources: Deliberations of a Community of Interest

Open Sharing, Global Benefits The OpenCourseWare Consortium

SME Academia cooperation in research projects in Research for the Benefit of SMEs within FP7 Capacities programme

Software Maintenance

EOSC Governance Development Forum 4 May 2017 Per Öster

e-portfolios in Australian education and training 2008 National Symposium Report

Cambridge NATIONALS. Creative imedia Level 1/2. UNIT R081 - Pre-Production Skills DELIVERY GUIDE

Beyond PDF. Using Wordpress to create dynamic, multimedia library publications. Library Technology Conference, 2016 Kate McCready Shane Nackerud

Unit purpose and aim. Level: 3 Sub-level: Unit 315 Credit value: 6 Guided learning hours: 50

MANAGEMENT CHARTER OF THE FOUNDATION HET RIJNLANDS LYCEUM

Educator s e-portfolio in the Modern University

ROLE DESCRIPTION. Name of Employee. Team Leader ICT Projects Date appointed to this position 2017 Date under review Name of reviewer

Freshman On-Track Toolkit

UNIVERSITY OF DERBY JOB DESCRIPTION. Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. JOB NUMBER SALARY to per annum

Higher education is becoming a major driver of economic competitiveness

Project Management for Rapid e-learning Development Jennifer De Vries Blue Streak Learning

Education the telstra BLuEPRint

Next-Generation Technical Services (NGTS) Archivists Toolkit Recommendations

The OhioLINK Digital Media Center Application Profile: A New Tool for Ohio Digital Collections

Job Description Head of Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies (RMPS)

Executive summary (in English)

WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, July 2015 V1. WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

A Framework for Articulating New Library Roles

Implementation Science and the Roll-out of the Head Start Program Performance Standards

Education and Training Committee, 19 November Standards of conduct, performance and ethics communications plan

Abstract. Janaka Jayalath Director / Information Systems, Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission, Sri Lanka.

AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES ADULT AND COMMUNITY LEARNING LEARNING PROGRAMMES

Digital Media Literacy

Electronic Reserves: A Centralized Approach to the Scanning Process

Jessica Gardner (Principal Investigator) with James Green (Project Manager) Date 13 October 2008 Filename CHARTER Project Plan.

Corpus Linguistics (L615)

The Characteristics of Programs of Information

Every curriculum policy starts from this policy and expands the detail in relation to the specific requirements of each policy s field.

Institutional review. University of Wales, Newport. November 2010

Challenges in Delivering Library Services for Distance Learning

Document number: 2013/ Programs Committee 6/2014 (July) Agenda Item 42.0 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Software Engineering

Core Values Engagement and Recommendations October 20, 2016

The development and promotion of Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) within the UK

APPENDIX A-13 PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY & LIBRARIANS (PMYR) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL

Drs Rachel Patrick, Emily Gray, Nikki Moodie School of Education, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, College of Design and Social Context

Institutional repository policies: best practices for encouraging self-archiving

Alternative education: Filling the gap in emergency and post-conflict situations

Standard 5: The Faculty. Martha Ross James Madison University Patty Garvin

I. Proposal presentations should follow Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB) format.

Engagement of Teaching Intensive Faculty. What does Engagement mean?

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY

Chapter 2. University Committee Structure

3. Improving Weather and Emergency Management Messaging: The Tulsa Weather Message Experiment. Arizona State University

UK flood management scheme

Quality in University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) and the Bologna process

Course Development Using OCW Resources: Applying the Inverted Classroom Model in an Electrical Engineering Course

IMPACTFUL, QUANTIFIABLE AND TRANSFORMATIONAL?

Capturing and Organizing Prior Student Learning with the OCW Backpack

LIBRARY AND RECORDS AND ARCHIVES SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 to 2020

VTCT Level 3 Award in Education and Training

Sharing, Reusing, and Repurposing Data

Oklahoma State University Policy and Procedures

Use and Adaptation of Open Source Software for Capacity Building to Strengthen Health Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Qualification handbook

Presentation Advice for your Professional Review

Curriculum Policy. November Independent Boarding and Day School for Boys and Girls. Royal Hospital School. ISI reference.

Bold resourcefulness: redefining employability and entrepreneurial learning

KENTUCKY FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BOARD PhD PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOL

Eduroam Support Clinics What are they?

Quality Framework for Assessment of Multimedia Learning Materials Version 1.0

BBC Spark : Lean at the BBC

CREATING SHARABLE LEARNING OBJECTS FROM EXISTING DIGITAL COURSE CONTENT

PERFORMING ARTS. Unit 2 Proposal for a commissioning brief Suite. Cambridge TECHNICALS LEVEL 3. L/507/6467 Guided learning hours: 60

Programme Specification. BSc (Hons) RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT

IUPUI Office of Student Conduct Disciplinary Procedures for Alleged Violations of Personal Misconduct

ODS Portal Share educational resources in communities Upload your educational content!

Introduction to Modeling and Simulation. Conceptual Modeling. OSMAN BALCI Professor

A Shared Leadership Approach to Change Management in Systems Projects

Principles, theories and practices of learning and development

PAPILLON HOUSE SCHOOL Making a difference for children with autism. Job Description. Supervised by: Band 7 Speech and Language Therapist

PRINCE2 Practitioner Certification Exam Training - Brochure

An Industrial Technologist s Core Knowledge: Web-based Strategy for Defining Our Discipline

Digital Technology Merit Badge Workbook

Post-16 transport to education and training. Statutory guidance for local authorities

Please find below a summary of why we feel Blackboard remains the best long term solution for the Lowell campus:

A GENERIC SPLIT PROCESS MODEL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING

Transcription:

Appendix 7: Evaluation Framework Key evaluation question: Is a devolved model of content creation sustainable and adept at creating a reliable flow of new OER? [References to related documents are included in the footnotes to the table.] Factor to Evaluate Questions to Address Method(s) Measure of Success Evidence from the project That an appropriate licence can be found, to which all parties can subscribe Does the licence offered meet the needs of Oxford? Testing and proof of concept against department content creators needs Clearer understanding of legal requirements Number of contributors who have signed the licence Discussed licence in detail at focus groups. 1 Questions relating to licensing options were included in the survey. 2 Feedback gathered from meetings with contributors and departments suggested two lengthy release forms were onerous and offputting. 3 Training provided on copyright and creative commons licensing, increasing the open content literacy across the University. 4 140 contributors have signed the licence (as at 21 April 2010). In the first year of the project, we have had three contributors who raised some form of objection to signing the licence: One contributor refused to sign because of an exaggerated stance taken during a debate and the contributor did not want the recording published. One contributor refused to sign the BY-NC-SA licence but would agree to sign a no 1

derivative works licence due to previous experience of misrepresentation in the media. One contributor was not happy to sign the licence due to the clause waiving moral rights, however this clause was easily removed and therefore it did not prohibit publication. That a significant proportion of material can be cleared under an appropriate licence Are there any barriers to providing material? What factors influence decisions to make content available? Investigate barriers and cultural issues A significant volume of material is licensed as open content proving that any perceived barriers have been addressed See comments above. Survey focussed on motivational factors for releasing material under a CC licence, plus asked what assistance would be needed. 2 As at 21 April 2010, 150+ hours of audio and video podcasts (over 280 items) are available for global reuse and redistribution as a result of this project. There is a clear drive to disseminate; academics are regularly requesting the support of the podcasting team to increase their dissemination activities (possibly to meet research funding requirements). For example, 30% more requests for support were received in the same 6 month period in 2010 versus 2009. The project generated new content rather than repurposing legacy material, this may have made copyright clearance easier. The project was able to be selective in the materials that were made open. For example if a presentation included copyright material we did not include it. Or if recordings included Q&A sessions we deleted them to avoid any potential IPR disputes with audience members. This minimised the copyright clearance workload which could otherwise have been significant. 2

That content creators can be supported in making informed choices about their content What factors influence staff making informed choices? How does OER fit into the content creation cycle? A model of open content literacy Successful staff development event to test the model. Embed OER training within the institution The project ran two training events covering copyright, Creative Commons and OER. 4 This training will become a standard course offered by the IT Learning Programme at Computing Services each term. In addition, a short OER section will be included in all relevant courses run by the IT Learning Programme at Computing Services. Academics seem happy to contribute as long as there is no significant impact on their time, i.e. the recordings can take place as part of their usual teaching or research activities. Two contributors refused when asked to support an activity which would require them to spend additional time on materials related to their podcasts. Improved metadata schema. 5 An expert cataloguer was used to maximise quality of the metadata and cataloguing. CC items are clearly identified on the web. Content is available through multiple delivery channels. The materials can be organised in ways to improve resource discovery How can materials best be tagged and organised to improve resource discovery? Indicative tagging categories Clearer understanding of factors influencing discoverability The materials can be managed in an efficient and cost-effective way Can we adopt a production process which streamlines workflows and minimises production costs? Inhabit existing content workflow. Indicative cost model Standard process used with minimal adaptation specifically for this project A standard institutional podcasting process was used with only a minor adjustment to capture licence information. 6 The project encouraged the devolved model of content production with the additional CC licence, this has worked well in departments with established teams supporting departmental podcasting activities (e.g. James Martin 21 st C School, Said Business School). The project encouraged appropriate use of audio 3

The project and materials are high quality That the streamlined workflow provides maximum benefits to the Institution That this work is sustainable at Oxford. What are the indicators of quality? What quality assurance is in place? Are we maximising benefits to the institution of a single point of ingest to multiple delivery channels Assessment against quality indicators Review of ease of use requirements Quality/status of contributors, quality of recordings Better services for delivery Midway through the project all OUCS projects exit/sustainability plans are reviewed by the user support team (UST) to assess the impacts, benefits, and value of the programme in the broader context and to stimulate discussion with the community of users at Oxford. This monitoring ensures that the project can respond flexibly to changes in the technical and political environment and that it is not overtaken by events. The sustainability of the versus video to reduce production costs when there was no perceived value to using high cost video (although academics have high expectations and want to produce the highest quality outputs). Quality of the project (and team) can be seen in the fact that more academics recommend to colleagues to become involved, indicating trust and an appropriate level of professionalism. Quality assurance: Quality of content is assured at the academic level, by the speaker themselves and their involvement with the academic activity of the University. Quality of the technical and recording is assured through support, training and technical advice. Quality of the published content is checked for sound quality by project team. Quality of the assets as learning resources is measured by feedback from users, colleagues and peers. Consistency of production methods ensure consistency of outputs (benefits quality). Central point of expertise can be called on to support others. Stability of delivery supported central service versus departmental systems. By using an existing and established workflow, the project has the best possible chance of continuing when funding stops. Training in podcasting skills and copyright/creative Commons/open content literacy have become standard offerings at the University. 4

Open Spires service at Oxford will be considered, evaluated and taken forward by this group. Following this pilot project, OUCS will consider, for an institution-wide OER service: Infrastructure Hardware, software, hosting, delivery, processes, standards, facilities, maintenance Expertise needed Competencies, roles, staff, suppliers, outsourcing Management Leadership, organisation, staffing, administration Economic models Setup/ongoing costs, investment, income generation, sponsorship Marketing Strategies for marketing and promotion, training and support Legal and intellectual property Simplified contributors form, IP rights needed, licensing & legal agreements, digital rights management, software registration Risk assessment and management, including financial risks Adoption of the devolved model of content production has been successful and will continue to be supported by the centre. One legal form which covers all podcasting activities at the University has been drafted and is awaiting approval by Council. This will significantly ease the burden of paperwork and improve the content contribution process. 7 Significant efforts have been made to market the project internally and externally, and Oxford s podcasting activities have received National press coverage. 8 1 See Appendix 1: Summary of Focus Groups. 2 See Appendix 3: Survey Report. 3 See Appendix 4: Use Case 1. 4 See Appendix 9: Training Session Summary. 5 See Appendix 12: Metadata schema. 6 See OpenSpires Final Report, Figure 1: OpenSpires Content Workflow. 7 See Appendix 2: Background to the OpenSpires licence. 8 See Appendix 10: Dissemination Outputs. 5