OER Steering Group - Meeting Minutes

advertisement
OER Steering Group Meeting 2
Minutes from Monday 7th September 10am
Queens MR1
In Attendance
Apologies
Richard Lamming (Chair) (RL)
Alison Wride (AW)
Tom Browne (TB)
Matt Newcombe (MN)
Mike Jeffries-Harris (MJH)
Jess Gardner (JG)
Liz Dunne (LD)
Olivia Dunn (Note-taker) (OD)
Ahmed Abu-Zayed (AAZ)
Claire Turner (CT)
Richard Jones (RJ)
Rachael Morgan (RM)
ITEM 1. Welcome and Introduction
RL welcomed the group and particularly the new members, Jess Gardner who is Acting Assistant Director
(Collections & Research Report) and Olivia Dunn, OER Project Administrator. Jess replaces Martin Myhill
and Olivia replaces Liz Hegarty.
The makeup of the Group was discussed and it was AGREED that because IPR issues are so central to the
project, a member of the Exeter University Legal Team should be present at each Steering Group Meeting.
Action: TB/OD to re-invite a representative of the Legal Team to attend.
ITEM 2. Minutes of last meeting
The minutes of the meeting of Thursday 25th June (http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/oer/wp01.htm) were
APPROVED.
1
ITEM 3. Project Progress Report
http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/oer/wp01.htm
1.0
Introduction
TB introduced the Progress Report paper.
2.0
Preliminary Outputs
It was noted that Exeter OER seems to be well-advanced and that other institutions are looking to Exeter’s
blog for reference and best practice. The Steering Group wished for it to be noted that each member sees
the project as being well-driven and is moving forward proactively, and that this should be emphasised to
VCEG.
Action: RL to mention to VCEG when appropriate.
3.0
Project Progress
Taken as read.
3.1
Staff Recruitment (WP-0)
Since the Progress Report was circulated, there has been one change in staffing issues. Ian Wellaway,
Educational Technologist, has been promoted to a position elsewhere in the University and will therefore be
leaving the OER team.
Action: SB and TB to discuss possible staffing solutions.
3.2
Project Management (WP-1)
The Group were asked if they felt sufficiently well-informed on the progress of the project and all without
exception said they felt they did.
3.3
Review of Current Practice/Challenges (WP-2)
TB reported that the three Educational Technologists had been encouraged to submit a paper to a UKbased conference on the various interpersonal relationships and challenges that they have experienced
during the project, in addition to reflections expressed on the Open Exeter blog (external and internal).
Submission deadline is near the end of October 2009. The Group AGREED this was a good idea for their
professional development and as a deliverable for the project. There are also synergies here with a
reflective blog being produced as part of an HEA-funded project managed by Education Enhancement.
Action: TB and SB to discuss possibility of combining with another project
Action: TB to discuss outcome with the three Educational Technologists
3.4
Quality Enhancement (WP-3)
The idea of an Editorial Panel was discussed and the Group AGREED this was a good idea, particularly to
help sustainability and scalability of OER after the project comes to a close. JG suggested it could be
extended to her team. In more visionary terms, it was viewed as a way of engaging academics’ peer-review
research motivations and expertise with their teaching responsibilities, thus contributing to the teachingresearch nexus.
AW suggested that some academics get involved because they are very interested in OER and others do
so purely as a ‘favour’ to the University and it was AGREED that more work had to be done in incentivising
academics to submit their work and rewarding them for doing so. Being on the editorial panel may help
academics feel more involved. Invitations to participate should be extended to Directors of Education.
Action: TB to write a Concept Paper for the proposed Editorial Panels
3.5
Identification of Material’s Provenance (WP-4)
More feedback was requested by TB from academics on how they feel the project is going. In response,
AW suggested that academics are very short on time and that it would be very difficult to get them to
contribute to the internal blog without there being something ‘in it for them’. It was AGREED that
establishing the Editorial Panel would go some way to improving feedback from academics and gathering
their views and concerns.
2
Action: Academic representation on the Steering Group to ‘seed’ the internal blog to encourage additional
contributions.
3.6
Licensing and Clearing (WP-5)
It was NOTED that Exeter is ahead of where we should be or thought we would be by now. IPR issues
continue to materialise but the team is doing a good job of handling them. There is a good spread across
the board with all three initial Schools being actively involved.
3.7
Interoperability (WP-6)
It was NOTED that after much discussion and investigation it had been AGREED that rather than using one
repository we will be using three discreet ones using DSpace. RL asked why DSpace had been chosen
rather than LOM (the preferred international standard) and MN explained that it was better suited to our
needs. It was recognised that there may be legitimate reasons of efficiency from a back office perspective
to have three discreet repositories but from a user perspective, it is more effective to have just one entry
point. Both scenarios should be able to co-exist. Further, this single point of entry will need to consider its
relationship and potential convergence with e.g. Exeter’s portal development and as another way to seek
synergies between research and teaching.
3.8
Metadata (WP-7)
Taken as read.
3.9
Delivery Platforms (WP-8)
Taken as read.
3.10
Tracking (WP-9)
Grainne Conole of the Open University is fronting a symposium at Alt-C in Manchester and has agreed to
do something similar at Exeter. Details can be found at:http://alt.conferenceservices.net/reports/template/onetextabstract.xml?xsl=template/ALTtextabstract.xsl&conferenceID=1613&a
bstractID=304147
It was AGREED that Lou McGill of the OU should be invited to the next OER Steering Group Meeting.
Additional meetings with Lou may be arranged on the same date as required.
Action: TB to invite Lou McGill to meeting of 10th November 2009
3.11
Training Materials/Dissemination (WP-10)
It was REPORTED that the webpage has been reorganised to promote an inwards-facing aspect to
complement the more outward-facing material, in order to attract attention from Exeter academics and
encourage them to get involved. RL suggested that contributing to OER should be written into new College
Structures and also be part of academics’ PDRs in order to give them an added incentive. It was AGREED
that this should be escalated to VCEG level.
Action: RL to consider best way of bringing to VCEG.
3.12
Ongoing and Final Evaluation (WP11)
It was NOTED that we are able to track who visits our blogs and where they come from which will be helpful
in evaluating the project.
It was suggested that in order to get academics’ feedback it would be useful for them to come together as a
group and it was AGREED that various online, synchronous methods would be explored to achieve this
objective, possibly once in December and one or two times next year before the end of the project.
Action: TB to consider best way of doing this.
4.0
Other Activities
This was taken as read.
3
If the submitted paper to ascilite 2009 is accepted then TB’s expenses will come out of the OER budget and
MN’s will come from elsewhere.
5.0
Budget
Taken as read.
ITEM 4. AOB
RL, on behalf of the Steering Group, acknowledged the excellent work being undertaken by Olivia and the
three Educational Technologists.
The Group saw the OER project as a very important strategic contribution to educational (research and
teaching) developments within the University and there was some discussion around capturing the
momentum in the phrase, as expressed by SB: ‘The future is now’.
Action: SB and RL to discuss at separate opportunities with Janice Kay, DVC for Education
A discussion took place regarding as to where OER sits within the Quality Standards Group, within the
University.
Action: TB to contact the secretary of the Quality Standards Group to ask if they would value a brief
position paper for their next meeting in October.
SB asked if at the next meeting there could be a visual display of the repository. This was AGREED.
Action: MN to make available.
SB asked RL if he could take strategic guidance from VCEG on the OER Project. RL AGREED and it was
also AGREED to add ‘Items for Escalation to VCEG’ as a standing item on all future agendas.
Action: OD to add to future agendas.
SB asked that an email be circulated around the team to thank them for their work so far on the project.
Action: TB to draft email, RL to send.
Meeting Closed.
Next Meeting Tuesday 10th November to include refreshments and lunch 10am-2pm, Venue TBA
4
Appendix i
Jargon-Buster
DVC
IPR
JISC CETIS
JISC
LTHE
OER
PCAP
PDR
SECaM
VCEG
VLE
WP
Deputy Vice Chancellor
Intellectual Property Rights
JISC Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards
Joint Information Systems Committee
Learning & Teaching in Higher Education (associate membership of Higher Education
Academy)
Open Educational Resources
Post-graduate Certificate of Academic Practice (fellow membership of Higher Education
Academy)
Personal Development Review
School of Engineering, Computers and Mathematics
Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group
Virtual Learning Environment
Work Package
5
Download
Related flashcards
Civil defense

33 Cards

Create flashcards