Barriers to OER Adoption (and potential solutions) Amanda Hovious, MSIDT, MLIS Texas Conference on Institutional Repositories June 2, 2017

What are OER?1 Open-access materials Open-source software Multimedia learning sources Lesson plans / curricula Web assets

Discoverability

Potential LOM Fixes Educational Resource Descriptions2 Educational Metadata Profile3

Increasing Visibility Text mining (OERScout)4 Common platform5

Improving Relevance ALMS Analysis6 Access to editing tools? Level of expertise required to revise or remix? Meaningfully editable? Source-file access?

Improving Relevance D-index6= (level of access x level of openness x relevance)

Reusability

5 Phases of Re-use7 Search Evaluation Adaptation Use Share

Levels of Openness8 OER I – Access only OER II – Access + specific use OER III – Re-mixable OER IV – Re-mix + redistribute

Localization Issues9,10 Context Culture Language Need for open format

Educators need to participate in all 5 phases of re-use!11 Open Education Practices Educators need to participate in all 5 phases of re-use!11

Sustainability

What Librarians Can Do12 Foster awareness of OER Promote OER IV openness Collaborate on OER initiatives Facilitate discoverability Advocate for multicultural-multilingual OER

References 1Pawlowski, J.M., & Hoel, T. (2012). Towards a global policy for open educational resources: The Paris OER declaration and its implications [White paper]. Version 0.2, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2012. 2Valiente, M-C., Sicilia, M-A., Garcia-Barriocanal, E., & Rajabi, E. (2015). Adopting the metadata approach to improve the search and analysis of educational resources for online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51B, 1134-1141. 3Solomou, G., Pierrakeas, C., & Kameas, A. (2015). Characterization of educational resources in e-learning systems using an educational metadata profile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 246-260. 4Abeywardena, I. S., Chan, C. S., & Tham, C. Y. (2013). OERScout technology framework: A novel approach to open educational resources search. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(4), 214-237. 5Wani, Z. A., & Sofi, A. A. (2016). Retrieval efficiency of select search engines vis-à-vis diverse open courseware formats. The Electronic Library, 34(3), 457-470. 6Abeywardena, I. S., Tham, C. Y., & Raviraja, S. (2012). Conceptual framework for parametrically measuring the desirability of open educational resources using D-Index. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 59-76. 7Clements, K., & Pawlowski, J. (2012). User-oriented quality for OER: Understanding teachers' views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 4-14. 8Tuomi, I. (2013). Open educational resources and the transformation of education. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 58- 78. 9Amiel, T. (2013). Identifying barriers to the remix of translated open educational resources. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(1), 126-144. 10Richter, T. (2011). Adaptability as a special demand on open educational resources: The cultural context of e-learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, Special Issue: Creativity and Open Educational Resources (OER), online. 11Beaven, T. (2013). Qualitative methods for researching teachers’ (re)use of OER. In OER13: Creating a Virtuous Circle, 26 - 27 March 2013, University of Nottingham. 12UNESCO. (2012). World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress, Paris, June 20-22, 2012.

Thank You. Amanda Hovious amandahovious@my.unt.edu