Posts Tagged ‘CORRE’

One of the most exciting outcomes of the OSTRICH project has been the trialling of the CORRE workflow model (copied below) that was developed at Leicester in the OTTER project, at both Derby and Bath. (Please note that this model was accompanied by a range of project management resources such as spreadsheets for tracking activities, templates for progress presentations and general guidelines for producers of OERs. These are all available at www.le.ac.uk/otter/about-otter/documentation.)

The CORRE (Content, Openness, Reuse and Repurposing, Evidence) workflow model for OER creation

The CORRE (Content, Openness, Reuse and Repurposing, Evidence) workflow model for OER creation

The model has been validated by Derby, who found that they could apply it when converting existing teaching materials into OERs. At Bath, however, where most of the OERs are new materials being created from scratch, some modifications were needed to the model. The main change was the integration of a “Design” stage under the “Content” phase of CORRE, to replace or supplement the “Gathering”  of existing resources from academics.

Designing for Openness, Reuse, Repurposing and Evaluation

Designing for Openness, Reuse, Repurposing and Evaluation

The journey from CORRE to DORRE is described in our OER11 presentation. Further support materials and guidelines are being developed and will soon be available via the OSTRICH website.

Gabi Witthaus, 21 June 2011


Read Full Post »

Today I visited our OSTRICH partners at Derby with my colleague, Media Zookeeper at Beyond Distance, Simon Kear. We had a very stimulating and inspiring session with Phill Gagen, Sam O’Neill and Linda Swanson. The Derby OSTRICH team is now in full swing with the gathering, screening, copyright clearance, transformation and formatting of OERs, and they’re building up a great bank of materials on subjects from Algebra through Hairdressing and Prenatal Development, to Quarrying. Many of these materials are filling gaps in the OER landscape, potentially meeting needs in specialist subject areas. (I was particularly interested in one of the Law OERs – on Law in the Music Industry – which is bound to be of interest to a wide range of people, not just Law students.)

Apart from looking over all the great OERs-in-progress, we also discussed how the CORRE workflow and evaluation model, which was developed in the OTTER project at Leicester, is being implemented at Derby. It seems that the model has transferred more or less seamlessly to the Derby context – the only major difference being that, since the Derby team is creating most of its OERs from scratch, as opposed to ‘OER-ing’ existing teaching materials, they are working much more closely with the academics than we were able to do in the OTTER project. This is likely to help lay the foundation for integrating OERs into learning design as a matter of course in future.

As a post-script, I was delighted to hear from our OER colleagues at Nottingham today that “It turns out that OER do save time and students do use them“!

Read Full Post »

At yesterday’s workshop with OER contributors in Derby, we brainstormed the questions they would ask themselves at each stage in the process of creating an OER, with reference to the CORRE framework generated during the OTTER project. What follows is the ‘raw’ list of what was generated – this will be compared to the indicative questions in the CORRE Tracking Sheets to ultimately inform Derby’s own version of the CORRE process.

A) Gathering/selecting an item of teaching material to be converted into an OER

  1. Is the item cohesive? i.e. Can it stand alone?
  2. Is the content accurate?
  3. Is it current and correct?
  4. Would I want my mother to see it? (Or: Am I happy to be associated with this in the public domain?)
  5. Do we have a sufficiently collegiate approach to feedback? (Thinking ahead to the validation stage…)
  6. Does the resource comply with university’s regulations and requirements?
  7. Does the university have commercial ambitions with this material that I need to consider before deciding on turning it into an OER?
  8. Does it contradict or duplicate other materials?
  9. Have I identified the metadata? (Tags for searchability, as well as an abstract and information for potential users about the context for which this resource was designed)

B) IPR and copyright (Questions to be applied to the resource as a whole as well as all its separate sections)

  1. Where does this originate from?
  2. Who is the rights holder?
  3. What, if any, existing licence, has this been published under?
  4. Is this fair use?
  5. Can we contact the rights holder if needed?
  6. What is the risk?
  7. Do we have permission from people included in the images/ videos/ audio files? (Written consent forms)
  8. How long is it going to take to get copyright clearance? Can we afford the time?
  9. If clearing copyright is going to be difficult or too time-consuming, can we recreate or replace this material instead?

C) Transformation for reuse

  1. How much work is required to transform the materials so that they can stand alone? (E.g. removing references to resources that are not openly available)
  2. If we take anything out, do we need to replace it with something else to keep up the coherence?
  3. Do the materials need much work to make sense outside of context that they were delivered in?
  4. What transformation is needed as a result of IPR issues?
  5. How much of the transformation is the author’s responsibility as opposed to OSTRICH team responsibility?
  6. Granularity – what will be the ‘chunk size’ of the things we are publishing?

D) Formatting/ digitisation for reuse (choosing the file format and executing it)

  1. Corporate image (Branding – Derby formats and logos etc.? Policy decision needed)
  2. Most suitable formats/ uses to allow it to be accessible to global market? (Can we produce it in a range of formats? Including mobile platforms?)
  3. Do all the materials have to be DDA compliant?
  4. Could the resource be altered for DDA purposes (by another user) if needed?
  5. Language and dialects – e.g. will international users understand the accents in audio files?
  6. Can I do it? Are the resources available to support me?
  7. Does it require complicated technology (either for the author or for the end user)?
  8. Will it work? (e.g. if we put it in a new format)

E. Validation

  1. Which groups need to validate the resource, and at which stages? Project team? Contributors? Students? Colleagues/ other educators? School/department head/ other senior managers? Are any sign-offs needed?
  2. What criteria will be used for validation at each stage? (E.g. fit-for-purpose, accessibility, scholarship – is it good enough?)
  3. Do we need to bring in “media experts” to check quality of products (e.g. videos (Bearing in mind that students don’t necessarily want “BBC-style” perfection)
  4. How do we get people to engage in the validation?
  5. How to process the data and what will be done with it?
  6. Granularity – when to validate?

F. Tracking

  1. What resources are being viewed – any stats on what’s popular, what’s not (e.g. using Google Analytics)? Can this information enable us to make decisions about what kind of new resources to bring in?
  2. Where are the users?
  3. Are there any significant trends?
  4. Timing – e.g. is it busier towards the end of the semester?
  5. What to do with resources that are never/ have not yet been used?
  6. How can we best use the stats in reports to senior management? (Qualified by a statement from the project team explaining what the stats mean)

I’m looking forward to seeing those old OTTER checklists being revised for Derby’s context in the light of these discussions.

Gabi Witthaus, 4 Nov 2010


Read Full Post »

The University of Bath has rolled up its sleeves in preparation for the creation and release of at least 100 credits’ worth of teaching materials as open educational resources (OERs). A workshop led by members of the OSTRICH project team from Leicester (Ale, Tania and myself), with the project team and academic contributors from Bath, marked a milestone in the startup of the project. The main aim was for the Leicester group to share knowledge based on our experiences of the OTTER project.

Yesterday morning’s session involved the core project team members from Bath (Andy, Vic and Julian), along with members of staff responsible for all matters related to intellectual property rights (IPR) and copyright in the institution (Kerena, Phil and Cara). Tania, Leicester’s copyright administrator, gave a summary of the IPR issues that had been encountered in the OTTER project, and a comprehensive account of how we had dealt with the challenges that had arisen. It was clear that Bath intends to take a rigorous approach to copyright management in the project.

The afternoon involved just the core project team, with the addition of Marie, who is planning to produce OERs in collaboration with a number of Bath’s partner institutions. This session focused on the workflow templates and spreadsheets that we had devised during the course of the OTTER project, which the Bath team will enhance and adapt to suit their own context. We also had an in-depth discussion on our respective responsibilities and commitments to one another and to the project.

This morning we met with the academics who have committed themselves to, or are considering, contributing OERs to the project. We started by eliciting everybody’s dreams and nightmares about OERs, which generated some interesting discussions on the purpose of OERs, the business model for producing and using OERs, the benefits for institutions and academics in producing OERs, and the challenges involved in incorporating other people’s OERs into our own teaching materials. The dreams and nightmares fed nicely into Ale’s presentation on FAQs (what our ex-colleague Sahm used to call ‘Frequently Avoided Questions’) about OERs. Ale and I were excited about the high level of enthusiasm for the project and the commitment to designing for openness that was evident.

This afternoon we had a ‘debriefing’ session amongst the core project team members, in which we discussed the next steps, mainly around liaising with academic contributors to help them implement the CORRE OER framework and processes. We rounded off the two days by developing a plan for internal, stakeholder-driven evaluation, which will complement and feed into the summative external evaluation at the end of the project.

Arising out of all these discussions, it is already clear that OSTRICH will go beyond the OTTER project outcomes by addressing the following challenges:

  • Managing workflow and information sharing in a virtual team – we will experiment with a Moodle space, to be created by Julian.
  • Implementing a more systematic approach to creating metadata for OERs
  • Gathering and collating data from key stakeholders at Bath (academic contributors, senior management, Directors of Studies, Students’ Union) about perceptions on OERs, as well as feedback on the cascade process and the quality of OERs released, as part of the internal evaluation process
  • Trialling a version of the CORRE framework in which contributors have more ownership of the process, as opposed to the original version of CORRE as piloted in the OTTER project, in which responsibility for all processes leading up to release of the OER rested with a centralised team. The new model has been nicknamed D-CORRE, the D standing for ‘devolved’.

I’m looking forward to seeing this all unfold.

Gabi Witthaus, 15 Oct 2010

(Edited 18 Oct)

Read Full Post »