Community Dimensions of Learning Object Repositories

1. Community Dimensions of Learning Object Repositories Sarah Currier CD-LOR Project Manager Presentation for the 1st CD-LOR Partners’ Workshop University of Strathclyde, 20th Oct. 2005

2. CD-LOR Overview • 1 June 2005 to 31 May 2007 • Project funded as part of JISC Digital Repositories Programme • Led by University of Dundee (Prof. Allison Littlejohn) • Partners University of Strathclyde and Intrallect Ltd. • Eight Associate Partners with LO repositories as testbeds • An international Steering Group • Gathering collaborative partners along the way to share and synthesize findings

3. CD-LOR will … … identify and analyse the factors that influence practical uptake and implementation of LO repositories within a range of different learning communities, and make its findings available in a range of ways for the benefit of UK HE/FE A question: Why isn’t the “learning object economy” dream coming true? • See James Dalziel’s slides from CETIS meeting at OU, 20th Sept. 2005 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/pedagogy/articles/MetadataPedagogyMeeting200905

4. CD-LOR background Some inspiration: Koper et al (ALT-J Mar. 2004) found that, in spite of the growing availability worldwide of reusable LOs and LO repositories, educators must still “cope with major problems when trying tofind, retrieve, adapt or use materials”. Their own experience was that “efforts required to reuse objects in most cases outweigh possible advantages. This is especially true when the objects are developed in different institutions. In many cases, course developers have decided that it is easier to (re-)create the materials themselves rather than reusing them from others.” They therefore developed a theoretical framework based on social science research to describe the requirements for the development of a successful LO exchange community.

5. CD-LOR Focus We are investigating the nature and needs of diverse communities that are supported by or coalesce around repositories We are not investigating technical interoperability, metadata, etc.*(we know quite a lot about that already) * Unless they have a bearing on the expressed needs of the communities involved in CD-LOR

6. CD-LOR Aims We aim to investigate barriers and enablers to successful embedding and use of LO repositories, in support of teaching and learning, within a diverse range of learning communities. Such communities include those based in individual and federated institutions and those that exist across institutions (regionally, nationally and internationally), e.g. discipline based communities, or communities coalescing around use in teaching and learning of particular formats, such as sound files. Thus CD-LOR will thereby assist the JISC in laying a firm evidence-base on which to build Phase Two of the Programme (2006/7), by focusing on the social and cultural dimensions of LO repositories within learning communities.

7. CD-LOR Objectives • Creating a typology of learning communities, mapping their characteristics in relation to their use of LO repositories • Identifying possible drivers, barriers and enablers to uptake and embedding of LO repositories within such communities • Prioritising, developing, implementing and testing a range of potential solutions to barriers in live test-beds with real learning communities • Producing use cases, case studies and a set of structured guidelines on LO repository implementation within learning communities • Producing recommendations for institutional managers on wider policy, strategy, systems and workflow issues • Developing institution-wide use cases linking LO repositories to wider information management processes • Investigating and reporting on personal resource management practices and strategies of individuals within learning communities • Making recommendations to JISC for ongoing developments.

8. CD-LOR Methodology • Desk research (review of literature, relevant project outputs and evaluations, repository community documentation (e.g. e-mail list archives) – resulting in mapping of community types to repository issues • Extension and evaluation through stakeholder consultation • Development and prioritisation with Associates of use cases eliciting possible solutions to barriers to reuse • Development and evaluation of technical and process solutions • Review of current institutional policies of relevance • Review of current resource management strategies of individual lecturers • Reports, use cases, case studies and structured guidelines released for public review before final release

9. CD-LOR Associates • Edinburgh University’s LORE (Learning Object Repository for Edinburgh) • UHI Millennium Institute • Aberdeen University • University of Ireland, Galway • The Learning Exchange (formerly known as Stòr Cùram) • JORUM • IVIMEDS: The International Virtual Medical School • The Spoken Word Project

10. Other CD-LOR Collaboration • JISC DeL West Midlands Share project • CETL-RLOs • Cambridge University’s UCEL Project • Nottingham University’s nursing school • JISC X4L and X4L2 • Lionshare peer-to-peer repository project (Penn State) • Australian initiatives (via Kerry Blinco) • HEA / Connect Portal • Norwegian eStandards (via Tore Hoel) • IVINURS • JISC DeL and SHEFC Transformation projects • The repository formerly known as HLSI • Dutch repositories projects (via Peter Sloep) • DIDET … etc.

11. Some thoughts on communities The way a repository is used depends upon the nature of the community it serves and how it is organised: * The motivations of community members * Members’ roles, status and relationships within the community * What the rewards and incentives are for using and sharing resources within that community * Who controls resource access and use * The size of the community and its effectiveness * The distance of members from each other (e.g. is face to face communication possible?) * Community ground-rules and how these develop and are supported * The reconciliation of multiple agendas * The rhythm of the community and its maintenance * Whether the community is perceived as open or closed

12. We already know the barriers! … e.g. • Staff roles, workload, recognition and rewards • Organisational / political barriers (e.g. competition vs. collaboration) • IPRs and digital rights management • Quality of resources • Quality of repository services (e.g. metadata workflows, searching)

13. Some recent notes … James Dalziel’s repository of LAMS learning activity designs – started from “how to create/nurture a community” – built repository around community software with reviews, discussion, different group views, etc. LIFE Expert Workshop on learning object repository interoperability – top priority by a long way was organisational and social barriers to embedding and use – talked about the need to fund sustainable communities in a long term fashion rather than just short term technical and materials development projects, about trust and democratisation of control being key John Bell’s 5-year development of a repository across 3 large Australian universities: see his ALT-C research paper – “organisations are not controllable” ... “ownership and authorship huge issues” … “collaboration vs. competition huge barrier” JISC Reference Model Projects: repository issues arising in ALL domains being looked at. KRN Workshop on communities of practice and repositories …

14. Key questions How can we develop, support, nurture learning communities? For me as a former repository manager: how can we support those who are setting up and managing repositories on behalf of learning communities?

15. Contact CD-LOR:http://www.dundee.ac.uk/fedsoc/inlet/projects/cd-lor/ Anoush Margaryan: Research Fellow A.Margaryan@DUNDEE.AC.UK Sarah Currier: Project Manager sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk Peter Douglas: Intrallect Ltd. p.douglas@INTRALLECT.COM