Sharing models with OER
Comparison of different educational resource sharing models within OER.
The tables outlined below (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) illustrate some of the characteristics of different approaches.
Table 1. Considerations of repository deposits versus providing links in a referatory.
|
Repository |
Referatory |
|
Deposit item |
Provide links to institution’s own repository |
|
Version control – once you have updated an item in the repository how do you contact all those who have previously downloaded it to alert them of the latest version? |
The institution can get access to their own statistics of visitors and downloads such as quantity, country, dates and so on |
|
If the resource is deposited in more than one repository the take down is more difficult to remove than from a single source point |
The institution is free to make their own decision such as licensing / takedown policies etc. |
|
Comply with the repository policies |
Hard to ensure that URLs are kept up to date |
Table 2. Key characteristics of a particular subscription-based collaboration and JorumOpen.
|
Subscription model |
Nationally managed repository |
|
Expensive |
Cheap |
|
Smaller pool of resources |
Bigger pool of resources |
|
Know that what you accessing is discipline-related |
Serendipity of finding ER from other subjects |
|
Better quality (?) – know the source (personal provenance) |
Uncertain provenance / too big to know people / authors personally |
|
Specify exactly what you want – commissioning |
Search for ER / take what is there and adapt |
|
Limited options / smaller choice |
Bigger choice – if you want something then the national repository should have it |
|
Controlling who is using your ER |
No control over who is downloading / using |
|
Collective knowledge / larger selection team – choosing more wisely |
Have to do it yourself |
|
Plugging holes strategically |
Plugging holes using what is there (might not be what you want) |
|
Slower to respond |
Immediately available |
|
Technology may date (costs associated with service) |
Service is free to use and technology will be kept up to date |
|
Have rights to get someone else to change something (usability / accuracy?) |
Have to change it yourself |
Table 3. The pros and cons of working in a collaboration.
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
More efficient in theory |
Time delays |
|
Greater pool of expertise |
Communication – members are more likely to be geographically dispersed |
|
Fun |
Inertia – risk of too much communication not leading to any action |
|
Ready or pre-existing networks – ready to go |
Conflicts of ideas / policies / teaching styles and content (accents, age, health care ways of doing things – devolution issues – wearing a watch) |
|
Multiple perspectives and sharing of e.g. policies, technical issues, procedures |
If there are too many conflicts of interest – project goes out of scope or doesn’t start at all |
|
More kudos for members |
Membership is typically exclusive and potentially narrow |
|
Ability to build bigger things (critical mass) as access to more intellectual capital and resources |
Potentially hindered by different members own policies, methods, standards etc |
|
Specify what you want (power and leverage) (see cons – compromise) |
Can’t do (exactly) what you want – need to compromise |
|
Added weight – defensibility (including legal defence) |
May get embroiled in legal issues not of own making |
|
Benefits of working together |
Potential for unequal sharing of benefits |
