Download - Pelc 2010 ugc final
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)Open and user-generated content: strategies to address quality and
copyright issues in Higher Education
Thomas Kretschmer & Thomas FischerInstitute for Innovation in Learning (ILI/FIM)
Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (GERMANY)
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Background
„CONtent Creation Excellence through Dialogue in Education“ – CONCEDE
Quality of User Generated Content in HE
„Open Educational Quality Initiative“ – OPAL
Quality of Open Educational Resources in HE
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Introduction
“…because quality is no objective characteristics of a learning resource or a service, but is constituted as a specific characteristic of a context which – in turn - is made up through the relation of the personal, organisational, social and structural interaction of the stakeholders involved.” Ehlers (2010)
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Explosion of User Generated Content
Time person of the year 2008
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Changing faces of e-Learning
From Distribution… Learning Management Systems
Materials online
PresentationInformation
…to Collaboration and Reflection
E-PortfoliosWeblogs
Communication Collaboration
WiKisCommunities
Transmissive Learning
Expansive Learning
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Definition UGC
User-generated content (UGC) (…) refers to various kinds of media content, publicly available, that are produced by end-users. (Wikipedia)
OECD (2008):Publication and sharing: be it on a publicly accessible website, a collaborative project work, or on a page on a social networking site accessible to a selected group of people Creative effort: often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively. Yet the minimum amount of creative effort is hard to define and depends on the context. Creation outside professional contexts: but possibility of feedback into organisational settings. It often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context. Motivating factors include: connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and the desire to express oneself.
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Examples UGC
Discussion boards
Blogs/Micro-blogging
Wikis
Social networking sites
News Sites
Memories
Mobile Photos & Videos
Customer review sites
Experience or photo sharing sites
Any other website that offers the opportunity for the consumer to share their knowledge and familiarity with a product or experience
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Definition OER
„OER are digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and re-use for teaching, learning and research“ (OECD 2008)
includes:Learning content
Tools
Implementation resources
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Scope of OER
Margulies (2005)
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
To summarise:
UGC may be an educational resource …or not
UGC may be an OER …or not
Both can be learning objects
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Universities and UGC
Inhibiting factors to the introduction of UGC into HE:
Lack of time, skills and reward system for teachers and still a significant share of learners Reluctance of many teachers to use or create UGC, since they challenge the concept of “authority”Ensuring quality of UGC is sometimes perceived as an additional burden instead of a key asset for learning experiences’ enrichment and knowledge managementMeasuring quality of collaborative UGC is not easy due to the difficulty of seizing individual contributionsThe use of UGC for learning is often considered a supplement to traditional pedagogic strategies instead of vehicle of pedagogic and organisational innovation. insufficient involvement of stakeholders, policy makers and users in the dialogue on quality into higher education
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
What is the object of quality assessment in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches ? (QMPP, 2009)
Activity, behaviour, communicationSocial interaction and networks; process of communication; activity, behaviour, communication
Process of learningProcess more important than outcomes; control of activities
Structure of learning objectsUser satisfaction; standardization; tagging
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
What are methods and instruments to assess/develop quality in the production of UGC and learning 2.0 approaches? (QMPP, 2009)
Self assessmentEmpowerment of learners; supporting system; tools & guidelines
Peer reviews, external assessment and collaborative dialogue
Polls, surveys; wisdom of the crowds
Challenges and problemsAbsence of standards; „garbage-in-garbage-out“-problem
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Peer creation Peer validation
Editing
Updating
Enriching
Benchmarking
Peer reviews
Peer reflections
Peer learning
Enablingprocesses
Enablingtools Enabling
policies
Enablingpolicies
Peers‘ / learners‘ side
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Methods of quality development for eLearning 2.0 (Ehlers 2009)
Methods of quality development
Quality assessment
by
Self-evaluation Learners with the
help of/ feedback by teachers
Assessment of e-portfolios
Teachers
Social recommendation
Peers, learning communities
Evaluations aimed at target group
Teachers
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Copyright / licensing
Traditional approach
OER: by definition not possible
UGC:•Limitation of creativity
•Problem to define contribution of individuals in collaborative outputs
Creative-Commons-alike approaches
OER: by definition included
UGC: •Increased reputation
•One problem disappears (there are enough left)
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
The CONCEDE quality framework(www.concede.cc)
Quality Procedures of LEARNERS
(discussed through peer reviews, comments and
rating)
INSTITUTIONAL Quality Procedures
(primarily represented by
teachers)
Dialogue & Negotiation
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
The vision
Open Educational Practices (OEP) are defined as practices which support the (re)use and production of high quality OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path
PELC, 08/09 April 2010, Plymouth
© Institut für Lern-Innovation 2008
Institut fürLern-
Innovation(FIM
NeuesLernen)
Thank you for your attention!!
www.fim.uni-erlangen.de
www.efquel.org
Skype: kre.fim
SecondLife: Hildegard Morpork
Follow-up at the:
EFQUEL Innovation Forum
Sept. 8-10, Lisbon (Portugal)