[Oer-community] Revised Week 2 OER mapping summary

[Susan D'Antoni]

Dear Colleagues,

The text below has been revised as requested by Christian "Maybe you can
add ISO metadata standard MLR (ISO/IEC 19788) to the list of focused
metadata standards, please?"

We will be giving you a URL for revised document once it is available on
the OER Knowledge Cloud for downloading if you wish.

Best,

Susan



On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Stracke, Christian <
Christian.Stracke at icb.uni-due.de> wrote:

>  Dear Susan and Sara,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you very much for this excellent overview and summary!****
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe you can add ISO metadata standard MLR (ISO/IEC 19788) to the list of
> focused metadata standards, please?****
>
> Thanks!****
>
> ** **
>
> Best****
>
> Christian****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> With best regards****
>
>  ****
>
> Christian Stracke****
>
>  ****
>
> ---****
>
>  ****
>
> Christian M. Stracke****
>
> Convener ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36/WG5
> Chair CEN TC 353
> HR, E-Learning, Quality and Competence Development
> University of Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen
> Universitaetsstr. 9 (ICB)
> D-45141 Essen (Germany)
>
> Tel.: +49-(0)201-183-4410
> Fax: +49-(0)201-183-4067
> E-mail: Christian.Stracke at icb.uni-due.de
> *
> LINQ The Leading Conference for Learning Innovations and Quality
> *http://www.learning-innovations.eu
> *
> QLET for Quality in Learning, Education and Training
> *http://www.qualitydevelopment.eu
> *
> AGRICOM for Agriculture Competences in Europe
> *http://www.agriculture-competences.eu
> *
> Q.E.D. supports Quality and Standards in e-Learning
> *http://www.qed-info.de
> *
> CEN/TC 353 "ICT for Learning, Education and Training"
> *http://www.cen.eu/isss/TC_353
> *
> ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 "IT for Learning, Education and Training"
> *http://www.sc36.org****
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca [mailto:
> oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] *Im Auftrag von *Susan D'Antoni
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. November 2012 14:49
> *An:* oer-community
> *Betreff:* [Oer-community] Week 2 OER mapping summary****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Colleagues,****
>
> ** **
>
> The summary of Week 2 is attached in two file formats and in the text
> below.  Last week the conversation went in a number of directions and
> Sara's summary captures the highlights.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Susan****
>
> ** **
>
> ********
>
> ** **
>
> Mapping the Landscape of OER Institutional Initiatives
> Summary of Week Two (19-24 November 2012): Could a world map be built
> collaboratively?
> Organisational approach for collaboration; Ensuring the quality of the
> information
> Prepared by Sara Frank Bristow, Salient Research****
>
> ** **
>
> This document provides an overview of key points addressed during week two
> of the Athabasca University-supported OER-mapping discussion (
> https://unescochair.athabascau.ca/oer-mapping-exercise), building on the
> interaction of the previous week (
> https://unescochair.athabascau.ca/oer-mapping-exercise/summaries/week1). *
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Please feel free to share these summaries among colleagues and networks.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> == 1. Why Map the OER Landscape? ==****
>
> ** **
>
> Various reasons to map the OER landscape, both geographically and
> conceptually, were identified in the first week’s discussion (see summary).
> Discussion during the second week further considered the purpose of a
> geographic map, and for whose benefit this might be undertaken. The
> following points were raised:****
>
> ** **
>
> * Different stakeholders would benefit from different approaches to OER
> mapping (e.g. geographical,  conceptual and curricular)
> * A distinction must be made between “mapping OER initiatives” and
> “mapping OER materials” – see below
> * Starting with a geographic map could enable information sharing for
> funders/advocates, as well as educators/content developers seeking to
> develop local networks; but might not enable resource discovery for
> teachers/learners, who are more likely to search by subject or language
> * A geographic map could serve the needs of a social network, connecting
> people to each other
> * A map could provide an introduction to and an overview of OER, and thus
> serve as a tool for advocacy
> * A number of existing digital OER content repositories exist already; a
> map could complement these and potentially interface with them, if built to
> open standards****
>
> ** **
>
> == 2. Essential Information: The Basics ==****
>
> ** **
>
> As noted above, members of the group have begun to discuss mapping both
> OER initiatives and OER materials. In revisiting this topic from week one,
> additional comments begin to sketch a classification into “essential” and
> “desirable” data.****
>
> ** **
>
> === 2a. Describing OER Initiatives ===****
>
> ** **
>
> This discussion has been convened around the mapping of OER initiatives.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Essential information:****
>
> * Initiative name
> * Initiative URL
> * Location of headquarters
> * Contact individual        ****
>
> ** **
>
> Desirable information:****
>
> * Language
> * Time markers, e.g. start/end date
> * Academic level
> * Subject area
> * Seeking collaborators
> * Funder(s)****
>
> ** **
>
> === 2b. Describing OER Materials ===****
>
> ** **
>
> Although the mapping of OER materials, e.g. in a content repository, is
> outside the scope of this discussion as envisioned, some useful ideas
> emerged.****
>
> ** **
>
> Essential information:****
>
> * Title
> * URL
> * Language
> * License type
> * Academic level/subject area   ****
>
> ** **
>
> Desirable information:****
>
> * Producer/Author
> * Contact individual
> * Date created
> * Format of resource
> * Technical requirements
> * Learner prerequisites
> * Related credentials****
>
> ** **
>
> == 3. Visual Presentation ==****
>
> ** **
>
> There has been limited discussion of visual approaches in addition to
> geographical mapping. The sample maps were reviewed and the following were
> noted as desirable:****
>
> ** **
>
> * Color coding
> * Ability to sort data in different ways,  using different languages and
> internationally validated terminologies
> * Text-based search tools
> * Accessibility, e.g. for screen readers
> * Open tools, e.g. FOSS, Open Street Map (OSM) over proprietary ones such
> as Google Maps
> * Scalability, i.e. flexible development which will allow the map to
> expand/evolve over time****
>
> ** **
>
> == 4. Organisational Approach for Collaboration ==****
>
> ** **
>
> It may be early in the discussion to foresee an obvious route for
> organisational collaboration. Participants who address the topic are quite
> confident that a collaborative approach is needed, however. A few models
> have been suggested:****
>
> ** **
>
> * Individuals might serve as representatives for poorly represented and/or
> non-English-speaking regions, to help translate ideas and build local
> mapping networks.
> * Individuals might process data collected by other organisations, to see
> what comes of early “sandbox” efforts.
> * Organisations already compiling OER databases might integrate
> geographical (e.g. OSM) data which could later be used for a visual mapping
> effort.
> * An organising institution might oversee “crowdsourcing,” as described by
> representatives of the Global Open Access Map (
> http://www.openaccessmap.org).****
>
> ** **
>
> == 5. Ensuring the Quality of the Information ==****
>
> ** **
>
> The matter of data quality was addressed by only a few contributors,
> expressing concern that:****
>
> ** **
>
> * All information must be kept accurate and up-to-date.
> * New strings of data may be unreliable; it is preferable to use linked
> (existing) data as possible.****
>
> ** **
>
> == 6. Other Topics ==****
>
> ** **
>
> The following topics have received considerable attention in week two:****
>
> ** **
>
> * The benefits of using free and open standards, tools, formats, software
> and APIs, and of committing openly to using these tools.
> * The importance of metadata as it relates to digital content
> repositories, with focus on LRMI, IMS, MLR (ISO/IEC 19788) and IEE LOM.
>
> * The fact that OER might benefit from other mapping approaches, e.g.
> knowledge mapping, concept mapping and curriculum mapping.****
>
> ** **
>
> == 7. Week Two Conclusions ==****
>
> ** **
>
> In week two there has been less brainstorming than before, as the focus
> has shifted to several key concerns. There have been over 250 messages to
> the list, from over 100 contributors worldwide. Discussion largely
> continued the topics of week one. ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> This summary © 2012 Sara Frank Bristow, Salient Research. Available under
> a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ********
>
>
> Sara Frank Bristow****
>
> *Salient Research*****
>
> sara at salientresearch.net****
>
> Twitter:@SalientResearch****
>
> Tel. +1 303.325.6063****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Susan D'Antoni****
>
>  ****
>
> Advisor to the President****
>
> International OER Initiatives****
>
> Athabasca University****
>
> Canada****
>
> tel 613 232 6496****
>
> skype iiepsusan****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oer-community mailing list
> Oer-community at athabascau.ca
> https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/listinfo/oer-community
>
>


-- 
Susan D'Antoni

Advisor to the President
International OER Initiatives
Athabasca University
Canada
tel 613 232 6496
skype iiepsusan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121126/0c8d62be/attachment.html