Staff Attitudes to Open Learning
-
Upload
the-open-education-consortium -
Category
Education
-
view
1.171 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Staff Attitudes to Open Learning
“Opening Up: Staff attitudes to open learning”
OCWC Global7th May 2010
Andy BegganLearning Team LeaderThe University of Nottingham
Outline of presentation
About Nottingham Why open learning?
Strategic drivers Background
Staff attitudes Focus group feedback Staff survey results Challenges Activities Impact on Nottingham
Next steps
About Nottingham• Research led institution• Student numbers
• 39,300 students (postgrad and undergrad)• 9,700 international (130 countries)• Six campuses (inc. China and Malaysia)
• E-Learning Support (Learning Team)• Multimedia production unit• VLEs• E-assessment• Video production/podcasting• Computer aided learning• E-learning development (Xerte)
1.Social responsibility2.Promotional opportunities3.Cost efficiencies
What is Nottingham doing? U-Now – OCW/OER Launched 2007 Member of OCWC 2008 11,280 visitors Q1 2010
Up 67% over Q1 2009 Over 2000 downloads for
‘Anatomists cookbook
UK HEA/JISC funded through BERLiN project 2009/10
The BERLiN project
Re-invigorate the U-Now (2009/10) Capturing examples from across all campuses Issues assigning credits? Led to ‘module frameworks’
Introduction to microeconomics
Rich learning objects add further depth No limitations of what can be made available
Podcasts and videos, interactive learning content, PDFs, etc
Copyright ‘hurdles’ main barrier
Opening up: Staff attitudes Open learning focus groups (Summer 2009) 20 academic staff across 5 focus groups All faculties at all levels of academic staff Feedback grouped under themes
Areas +ve, -ve, neutral Themes
Online staff survey (Mar 2010) 6% of academic staff (98)
Focus group feedback
19
154
138Social responsibility PromotionCost efficiencies
Focus groups
Impact
Commercial
IPR
University showcase
Academic concerns
Academic promotion
Changing current practice
Development costs
Target audience
Learning strategies
Book sales
QA
Barriers for reuse
Loss of control
Social responsibility Promotion Cost efficiencies
Distribution across themes
Focus groups
1. Social responsibility
“I have got this feeling that there’s people out there who don’t have access to education and that they’ve got access to the internet. Maybe they could use these courses or sessions or the odd video or whatever to just top up what they cannot manage to get from their own education system.”
Focus groups
1. Social responsibility
Impact
Commercial
IPR
University showcase
Academic concerns
Academic promotion
Changing current practice
Development costs
Target audience
Learning strategies
Book sales
QA
Barriers for reuse
Loss of control
Positive Negative Neutral Focus groups
Contribution• Individual• School• Consortium
Clearance• Permissions• IPR• Copyright
Construction• Assembly• Packaging• URLs
Cataloguing• Metadata• Keywords/tags• Upload
Circulation• OER aggregating
sites• RSS feeds• Web2.0
Connections• Internal• External• Partnerships
Connections• Internal•External•Partnerships
Connections• Internal•External•Partnerships
Strongly Agree11%
Agree56%
Neutral25%
Disagree7%
Strongly Disagree1%
Open Educational Resources (OER) can help build fruitful partnerships
with colleagues and institutions worldwide
Strongly Agree6%
Agree48%
Neutral38%
Disagree5%
Strongly Disagree2%
Students benefit from the range of approaches available through
the use of Open Educational Resources(OER) in my teaching
Staff survey
OER Africa feedback on U-Now Address multiple audiences at the same time Display
Intended level of use and target audience Brief description Licence File size Technical information and publisher Downloading instructions
Different approaches to navigation (browse, filter, search) Encourage editing and repurpose
UKOER~OER Africa / UNESCO partnerships OER ‘Shopping list’ to support African HEIs
International partnerships
2. Promotion
“I don’t think it would make any difference to our reputation as teachers. The whole culture is research. All the promotions and everything are through research.”
“I fought quite hard for the materials to be made more widely available than just within the University for a number of reasons. It adds to the reputation of the Centre, it attracts good tutors; it’s got lots of knock on effects that are very positive.” Focus groups
2. Promotion
Impact
Commercial
IPR
University showcase
Academic concerns
Academic promotion
Changing current practice
Development costs
Target audience
Learning strategies
Book sales
QA
Barriers for reuse
Loss of control
Positive Negative NeutralFocus groups
Enha
nce
Uni
vers
ity r
eput
atio
nEn
hanc
e pe
rson
al r
eput
atio
nEn
hanc
e th
e us
ers
know
ledg
e of
a s
ubje
ct
Enha
nce
the
user
s kn
owle
dge
of a
cou
rse
Supp
ort s
tude
nts
with
out f
orm
al a
cces
s to
HE
Shar
e be
st p
ract
ice
Red
uce
deve
lopm
ent c
osts
/tim
e
Dev
elop
com
mun
ities
and
bui
ld c
onne
ctio
nsEn
hanc
e cu
rren
t pra
ctic
eSu
ppor
t dev
elop
ing
natio
ns
Enhance Uni-versity reputa-
tion
Enhance personal
reputation
Enhance the users know-
ledge of a sub-ject
Enhance the users know-ledge of a
course
Support stu-dents without access to HE
Share best practice
Reduce de-velopment costs/time
Develop communities
and build connections
Enhance current prac-
tice
Support de-veloping na-
tions
73%
56%60%
47%
66%72%
22%
44%
33%
58%
9% 7%
51%
34%
22%
42%47%
21%
30%
15%
What benefits do you see in publishing and using OER materials?
Publishing Using
Staff survey
Open Courseware Consortium Joined OCWC in 2007/8 One of 4 UK members
Mathematical institute, Oxford Peoples-uni.org The Open University The University of Nottingham
Doubled visitors to U-Now Around 30% referrals to U-Now Q1
2010 comes via OCWC
Submission via RSS
Promotion of staff
3. Cost efficiencies “ I’ve used other people’s materials and some stuff
you see is terrible and other things you think oh that’s a good idea I’ll do it like that. You pick and choose, mix it up with your own stuff and I find that an incredibly positive process.”
“There would be issues over copyright, principally images, graphs, figures, data from papers and textbooks used willy-nilly in lectures because you don’t have that fear… you are breaching copyright.”
Focus groups
3. Cost efficiencies
Impact
Commercial
IPR
University showcase
Academic concerns
Academic promotion
Changing current practice
Development costs
Target audience
Learning strategies
Book sales
QA
Barriers for reuse
Loss of control
Positive Negative Neutral Focus groups
Strongly Agree
19%
Agree49%
Neutral20%
Dis-agree10%
Strongly Disagree2%
I would only use OER in my teaching if I am able to edit and personalise the materials for use with my students
Strongly Agree1%
Agree49%
Neutral42%
Disagree6%
Strongly Disagree2%
Reusing OER is a useful way of developing new courses
Staff survey
Re-purposing OER
Lect
ure
Not
es
Rec
orde
d le
ctur
esPo
dcas
ts (o
ther
than
lect
ures
)In
tera
ctiv
e le
arni
ng o
bjec
tsPo
wer
Poin
t slid
es
Mod
ule
hand
book
sA
sses
smen
t que
stio
ns (f
orm
ativ
e)
Ass
essm
ent q
uest
ions
(sum
mat
ive)
Rea
ding
list
s
Tim
etab
les
Imag
es
Ani
mat
ions
Vid
eo
Lecture Notes
Recorded lectures
Podcasts (other than lectures)
Interactive learning ob-
jects
PowerPoint slides
Module handbooks
Assessment questions
(formative)
Assessment questions (summat-
ive)
Reading lists
Timetables Images Animations Video
49 %
30% 30%
38%
66%
33%37%
23%
53%
15%
35%
28%
35%
46%
27%33%
39%
59%
32%
38%
29%
43%
9%
46%
38%42%
What types of open resources would you be most willing to publish or use?
Publish Use
Staff survey
XPERT Producer-centric models Xerte Public E-learning ReposiTory UK JISC funded under rapid innovation programme To progress the vision of a distributed architecture of
e-learning resources for sharing and re-use Based on Xerte Online Toolkits
www.nottingham.ac.uk/xerte www.nottingham.ac.uk/xpert/
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/xpert/
Aware-ness of the uni-versity OER re-pository
and other OER re-
positories
Fear over copyright infringe-
ment
Owner-ship and
legal barriers (other than copy-right)
Your time Scepti-cism over
useful-ness
Lack of reward and re-
cognition
Possible negative impact on
reputa-tion
Lack of support
School/institution
policy
Criticism from col-leagues
Criticism from
students
Impact on career
progres-sion
Relev-ancy of
materials available
Lack of feedback
from users
32%
58%
43%
65%
16%
37%
21% 23%
11% 9%3%
8% 8%13%
55%
25%
16%
26% 24%
8%3%
8%5% 8% 8%
1%
40%
5%
What barriers do you face in publishing and using OER materials?
Publishing Using
Staff survey
Staff survey
Impact on Nottingham
Yes29%
No68%
Unsure3%
Staff survey: I have submitted teaching and learn-ing resources for publication as OER
Yes39%
No17%
Unsure44%
Staff survey: I will submit teaching and learning resources for publication as OER in the future
Yes27%
No70%
Unsure3%
Staff survey: I have used OER from other academ-ics in my teaching
Yes42%
No14%
Unsure44%
Staff survey: I will use OER from other academics in my teaching in the future
Next steps Social responsibility
UKOER~OER Africa framework
Promotion U-Now website review School based and subject based RSS feeds
Support growth of local communities Link to prospectuses / school webpages
Cost efficiencies ‘Digital literacy course’ Appropriate reuse and repurpose of OER Workshops, seminars, PGCHE New tools and technologies