Developing a partner’s case study for OER
This document is a draft version of a proforma which will help you develop a case study of your chosen ‘exemplar module’ for the project website (as shown briefly at the 18th Jan meeting). Combined with the module mapping tool (still in development) the aim of this exercise, as outlined in the project propositions, is to develop a ‘rich description’ of your material in order to increase the possibility of re-contextualisation by other users, and to develop further insights into tacit practice.
The case study description should be based around one of your modules, perhaps a module discussed during the development exercise. We may have further iterations of the remaining project materials, particularly before uploading into JORUM (and there will be further separate guidance and support for this).
It is a work in progress, so we would welcome any feedback or comments at this point. Although the guidance is incomplete, we hope that you can begin to develop your comments over the next few weeks.
At the moment, we envisage that each of the sections in the case study (“before”, “process” and “after”) will be produced in two complimentary forms:
  1. as a short reflexive piece (250-500 words per section, 750-1500 max altogether for all commentaries)
  2. and possibly also a short audio/video piece (max 2 minutes) accompanying each commentary or alternatively an audio/video piece which functions as a reflexive summary of the commentaries in general. More detailed guidance will be provided as to the format, we will also offer support, equipment etc. [to be discussed in more detail – could be done individually, with help from project team, or at a supported next meeting or workshop]
In order to adhere to principles of accessibility, we will encourage you to provide transcripts of the audio/video pieces.
As an example of how we imagine case studies for C-SAP OER project, see the case studiescarouselon the NQT Study website to media items). These have a mix of text, video and audio files.
‘Before’ commentary
Initial prompts to begin the commentary:
  • how module is typically delivered
  • rooms, technology
  • numbers of students,
  • module review process
It is perhaps helpful to draw on the ‘sample materials audit’ from our earlier conversations – there may be some inevitable overlap between this commentary and the module description or mapping tool, however the focus of the case study will be your reflections. You might also of course draw upon any other material in the wiki that you have contributed to the wiki.
‘Process’ commentary
  • reflections on material ownership re institution and consortium process
  • motivations to share and release
  • issues of copyright/IPR
  • sensitive elements in materials
  • review process for materials
  • opportunity to share understandings of practice with partners
Some of these elements may overlap with discussions with Graham (our evaluator).
‘After’ commentary
Guidance will be provided once we have reviewed the literature on pedagogic frameworks.
Any other supporting material
At the moment, we would like to invite you to reflect on possible elements that might be included, for instance feedback from students, anecdotes, photographs or other media.

C-SAP OER case study guidance v.11