Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material

  • Published on
    28-Jan-2015

  • View
    105

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A presentation by Dr Jane Secker, DELILA Project Manager, London School of Economics. Conducted at a DELILA (Developing Educators Learning and Information Literacies for Accreditation) dissemination event hosted by the Centre for Distance Education on 26 July 2011. Presentation slides and more details can be seen at www.cde.london.ac.uk.

Transcript

  • 1. Why, why, why DELILA? A project to promote the open sharing of our information literacy and digital literacy teaching material Dr Jane Secker, DELILA Project Manager, LSE j.secker@lse.ac.uk@jsecker #DELILA

2. Project overview

  • JISC/HEA funded project in OER Phase II programme
  • Part of the OMAC strand(open materials for accredited courses)
  • Project partners: LSE, University of Birmingham, CILIP CSG-Information Literacy Group
  • Paired with CPD4HE Project based at UCL

3. Aims and objectives

  • To provide a model of embedded digital and information literacy support into teacher training at higher education level;
  • To release a small sample of open educational resources to support embedding digital and information literacy education into institutional teacher training courses accredited by the HEA including PGCerts and other CPD courses;
  • To customise local repositories to provide access to these resources.

4. Why, why, why DELILA?

  • Why LSE and UoB? - Carillo workshop
  • Educational developers could make use of generic Information and Digital Literacy material in PGCerts
  • Many librarians have already created valuable resources
  • Sharing
    • helps model best practice
    • saves time and money
    • is good for your institution and your reputation

5. Information Literacy

  • CILIP definition
  • Information literacy is knowing when and why you need information, where to find it, and how to evaluate, use and communicate it in an ethical manner.
  • SCONUL seven pillars of information literacy breaks this down into seven areas

6. SCONUL 7 Pillars 7. Digital Literacy

  • the skills, knowledge and understanding that enables critical, creative, discerning and safe practices when engaging with digital technologies in all areas of life
  • FutureLab, (2010)

8. FutureLabs Digital Literacy model http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/handbooks/Handbook1706 9. DELILA Project overview

  • 8 Work packages:
      • IL/ DL Audit
      • Mapping of digital/information literacy content to UKPSF
      • Content review for open-ness
      • Conversion of material to appropriate format (licensing etc.)
      • Repository customisation
      • Deposit of content
      • Dissemination and publicity
      • Quality control and evaluation

10. Relevant frameworks and Standards

  • UKPSF (UK Professional Standards framework)
    • http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/universitiesandcolleges/accreditation/ukpsf
  • CORRE framework (Content. Re-Use and Repurpose. Evidence.)
    • http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/projects/otter

11. Review process

  • Worked examples:
    • Follow a template overview; resources available; format; credits/hours; which parts of IL/DL frameworks met; which parts of UKPSF met; module breakdown
    • LSE
      • Already has material embedded in their PGCert
      • Worked example has timings etc
    • Bham
      • Doesnt have material embedded in PGCert
      • Used generic material which fitted nicely with existing modules in PGCert

12. The audit

  • Comprehensive spreadsheet
  • Volume of material
  • Getting release of material signed off
  • Generic topics covered
  • UoB Information Literacy and LSE Digitial Literacy
  • Gap analysis

13. Review against existing frameworks

  • Mapped UKPSF to SCONUL 7 Pillars and Digital Literacy framework
  • Reviewed content against UKSPF, SCONUL 7 Pillars (S7P) and OER best practice
  • Aim to enhance value of material by increasing its opportunity and likelihood of re-use
  • Created 4 worked examples

14. Conversion to OER

  • Learning curve quite steep
  • Challenges mostly due to inexperience!
  • IPR issues
  • Review content
    • 3 rdparty content most common issue
    • Dealing with screenshots
  • Add Creative Commons information
  • Metadata

15. Customisation of IR

  • IRs increase the visibility of material
  • IRs assign permanent urls for content
  • Additional metadata for OERs
      • Based on UKLOM standard
      • 7 Pillars, UKPSF
      • JORUM requirements
  • Both UoB and LSE use ePrints repository software
      • Customise display of OERs
      • Layout improved to show key OER metadata at a glance
      • Thumbnails of PDFs and Office docs displayed automatically

16. Customisation of IR (cont)

  • Option of using plugins to display material via embedded viewers
  • Look is similar to HumBox
    • http:// www.humbox.ac.uk /
  • Birminghams repository finished:
    • CC licence and metadata added, and external screenshots removed
  • LSE have a created a new instance of their repository. A test version is up and running

17. Customisation of IR (cont) 18. Content deposit

  • Identified deposit workflows
  • Investigated automatic harvesting and direct download options
    • SWORD (Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit )
  • Used manual deposit (easier as small number of resources)
  • Still need to upload resources to Jorum

19. External evaluators and critical friends

  • Aids transparency
  • Different point of view
  • Helps to ensure project achieves what it was intended to
  • Template and criteria for evaluation
    • http://delilaopen.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/evaluating-open-educational-resources-draft-criteria-now-available/

20. Promotion

  • Blog - http://delilaopen.wordpress.com/
  • Twitter - @jsecker; @cathrobertson; @msnancygraham; #UKOER; #DELILA
  • Conferences
    • LILAC 2011 (April 2011)
    • OER11 (May 2011)
    • All Ireland Society for Higher Education Conference (August 2011)
    • SEDA Conference poster (November 2011)
  • Journal papers
    • Journal of Information Literacy
    • ALISS Quarterly
  • Todays workshop

21. Issues

  • Are DL / IL resources more institutionally specific than other teaching materials?
  • IPR issues can be problematic
  • IPR issues avoided by removing content e.g. screenshots and using placeholder
  • CC licences: Non commercial / 2.5 or 3.0
  • Keeping materials up to date in repository
  • Reusing LSE/UoB material - how practical is it?

22. Lessons learned

  • DL and IL underpin teaching courses but not explicit in framework
  • Potential to re-use some DL / IL materials and to promote them better to teachers and educational developers
  • Improving creator workflow for resources
    • Record teaching material creation and store resources in a single place
    • Map resources to establish frameworks
    • Make OER considerations such as embedding CC information etc, early on

23. DELILA Workshop: Panel

  • How feasible is it to share IL and DL resources
    • Within an institution?
    • With another institution?
  • Should DL and IL be embedded into teaching qualifications and is this the best approach?

24. Other questions?

Recommended

View more >