Comparison of big and little open education resources; identifies benefits and drawbacks of each. Based on ideas by Martin Weller.

2. • Institutionally generated
• MIT Open Courseware
• OpenLearn
• USU Open Courseware
• Rice Connexions

3.  High Quality
 Explicit teaching aims
 Meet specific learning aims
 Uniformed
 Structured
 Large choice of content

4.  Cost
 Not suitable for repurposing
 Discourages creativity
 Discourages social interaction
 Discourages innovation

5. • Individually produced
• “Frictionless by-product”
• Blog posts
• Articles
• Presentations

6.  Low cost
 Bottom-up production
 Supports sharing
 Supports staff development
 Supports creativity & innovation
 Supports participation
 Transferrable to different contexts

7.  Low quality
 No explicit aim
 Unpredictable use and audience
 No framework for dissemination
 Greater effort

8.  Weller, M. (2011b) „Public engagement as collateral damage‟ in The Digital
Scholar, London, Bloomsbury Academic. Also available online at
http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/ view/
DigitalScholar_9781849666275/ chapter-ba-9781849666275-chapter-007.xmll
 Weller, M. (2012) „The openness–creativity cycle in education‟, Special issue
on Open Educational Resources, JIME, Spring 2012 [online]. Available at
http://jime.open.ac.uk/ jime/ article/ view/ 2012-02