We use cookies to give you the best experience and to help improve our website

Find out more about how we use cookies

Choose whether to use cookies:

No thanks That's fine

Skip to main content

Jisc

You are in:

  • Advice
  • Guides
  • Open educational resources (OERs)
  • OER myths

Utilities:

  • Search the Jisc website
    Clear search results

Search the Jisc website
Clear search results

Navigation:

Guide

OER myths

Page 3 of 17 - Open educational resources (OERs)

Archived
This content was archived in September 2016

About this guide

  • Published: 1 April 2010
  • Updated: 17 September 2014

View full guide as a single page

Contents

Open educational resources (OERs)
  • Stakeholders and benefits
  • OER myths
  • OER evaluation
  • Management considerations
    • Approaches and models
    • Quality considerations
    • Sustainability
  • Learning and teaching considerations
    • Cultural considerations
    • OER use and re-use
    • Overcoming barriers and finding enablers
  • Technical and data management considerations
    • Accessibility considerations
  • Legal aspects
    • Intellectual property considerations
  • Further resources

A number of myths perpetuate about open educational resources. This section aims to explain and dispel some of them. CETIS have a resource around OER myths for the Jisc/Academy pilot: OER release.

The sharing myth

Jisc has commissioned a number of studies into the ‘sharing’ of learning and teaching resources (Community Dimensions of Learning Object Repositories CD LOR, Trust in Digital Repositories TRUST DR, WM-Share, RepoMMan, Rights and Rewards survey, Sharing e-learning content,  Good Intentions report) and also funded a series of projects focussed on ‘exchange’ of learning resources (Exchange for Learning Programme (X4L). These two terms are often used in relation to OERs but it is useful to clarify what we mean by some of these terms in this context.

When we use the word sharing we usually imply an intent – where someone, or some organisation, chooses to share something of value with either a specific audience or more widely. This is different to ‘exchanging‘ where both/all parties want, and agree to, share for some mutual benefit.  Whilst often overlooked, the difference between these two actions is significant, particularly in relation to business models and benefits. It could be argued that sharing implies an open model (sharing with all) and exchange a community based model which relies on mutual benefits within a specific community.

Some community models (such as International Virtual Medical School – IVIMEDS) began with an exchange model between subscribing institutions but have had to adapt the model to recognise that not all partners can contribute equally in terms of content. The value of having a strong community of practice makes membership attractive with the content not always being the primary consideration.

Terms such as reuse and re-purposing may imply an underlying principle of sharing (sometimes enforced as a condition of funding), but people may not necessarily be consciously intending to share. Some take, some give and some do both, for a range of reasons. It can be useful to consider sharing and exchange as processes relating to OER Release (either conscious or not) but it is the intent behind the various initiatives, activities and services that is important to the resulting approaches that individuals, communities or institutions adopt.

Whilst there may be reluctance on the part of teachers to engage with business terminology, (Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources: an Ithaka report) thinking about the stakeholders in the OER movement in relation to a producer/consumer model can help people to look at things a little differently.

An interesting OER metaphor

This is not intended to compare OERs with commercial products but was developed to illustrate the value in considering the different roles that exist in the production and use/re-use of OERs and to highlight the importance of considering end users (by Lou McGill for Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials Open Educational Repositories: Share, Improve, Reuse | Edinburgh 25-26 March 2009. Keynote )

This table uses the example of cows milk and attempts to liken these to roles within OER release (third column):

MilkRoleOERs
CowPrimary producer/creatorTeacher/author
CalfPrimary consumerEnrolled student
FarmerSecondary producer/repurposerLearning technologist/Course leader
Milk bottlersPrimary supplierLearning technologist
ShopSecondary supplierdeposit in institutional repository or open deposit
Human familySecondary consumerTeacher within or outside institution
Human family and petsSharers and re-usersEnrolled students of that teacher
Person with milk, Person with cocoa powder, Person with sugar – can make chocolateExchange and repurposersother teachers within or outside institution
Chocolate in shop fridgerepositorydeposit in different open repositories
Chocolate eatenre-users/maybe sharing; )potentially global learners
Chocolate added to cake mixturefurther re-purposingpotentially global teachers

One way of visually representing this analogy:

Creative Commons attribution information
OER visualisation
©Jisc
All rights reserved

Book Navigation

  • ‹ Stakeholders and benefits
  • up
  • OER evaluation ›

You are in:

  • Advice
  • Guides
  • Open educational resources (OERs)
  • OER myths

Give feedback

Areas

  • Connectivity
  • Cyber security
  • Cloud
  • Data and analytics
  • Libraries, learning resources and research
  • Student experience
  • Trust and identity
  • Advice and guidance

Explore

  • Guides
  • Training
  • Consultancy
  • Events
  • R&D

Useful

  • About
  • Membership
  • Get involved
  • News
  • Jobs

Get in touch

  • Contact us
  • Sign up to our newsletter
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Cookies
  • Privacy
  • Modern slavery
  • Accessibility