8. Why ?
• One manageable subject – tasters and one
20 M‐credit unit
• Marketing, profile, upskilling, attracting new
kinds of learners, research
• Small, flexible and autonomous – change more
manageable
• Geography and creative ethos make us
progressive
• Commitment to new modes of learning for new
types of students
9. Lessons learned institutionally
• Cultural as much as organisational shift –
knowledge gaps
• Ideal team (Project Manager, IT Partners, The
Enforcer, subject specialists)
• Sustainability
• Site needs to be monitored post‐launch ‐ organic
• We are on our own – no subject precedents – chance
to be pedagogically creative
10.
11.
12. Lessons learned: IPR
• The approach we took: Non‐commercial, Share Alike, No
Derivatives
– Tutors are respected & active practitioners in their fields
– Protecting their intellectual property = protecting their non‐academic
livelihood
– Supports tutors’ ability to negotiate favourable terms for future
contracts
• Was it the right one?
• Will it be right for future project?
• Huge knowledge gap in this area
14. Other lessons learnt
• Content creators – training needed
• Finding the right open source software to deliver what we need, with no
ongoing cost
• Hosting and bandwidth
• Dealing with creative subjects – no straight right and wrong – no
precedents – generally lo tech approach –steep learning curve
• Tight project management – milestones and deadlines
15. Creating a process
• Process of adapting campus‐delivered course units into online formats.
• Identity pre‐existing unit and guidance materials.
• Ask the question “what will encourage active OE learning?”
• Agree OERs’ file formats and train Performance tutors in how to create
them.
• Identify open source and/or free software or browser‐based apps
• Write the lessons, assignments and supporting information (How this unit
works, etc).
• Upload to platform and edit.
• Outline the peer review and quality control processes (alpha & beta testing)
• Evaluation by stakeholders
16. Internal Impact
• New skills and roles for academics
• Expertise developed for one projects is transferable to other disciplines ‐
flexible and scalable digital learning materials: portable products
• Transferring course dynamics into OE format (community and
interactivity)
• Greater understanding of learner – and potential learner – behaviour
• Above leads to understanding of cost effective delivery
• Phase 2 – OER development established as part of core job
• OER materials can become part of core delivery – institutional motivation
for doing more
17. External Impact
• Raised profile of UCF – as innovator/cost effective
• Have a product that is flexible and scalable
• Community learning model ‐ Research potential – do we need tutors for
day to day delivery at all?
• New relationships – Loughborough, JISC, subject centres, leaders in the
field, other OER developers
18. Where Next?
• Hopefully Phase 2
• Adapt to new platforms – mobile app
• Marketing, distribution and dissemination – shout alot
• Develop sustainable IPR policy
• Evaluation and research – users, cost‐benefit of learning approach, new
types of learners, ROI
• Permanent academic‐led, in‐house development team – in tune with
institutional imperatives and strategy
