OER Steering Group Meeting – Meeting- 4
Minutes from Wednesday13th January 2010, 10:00-12:30
Queens 1C
In Attendance Apologies
Sue Birkhill (BH)Richard Lamming
Alison Wride (Chair) (AW) Richard Jones
Tom Browne (TB)Jess Gardner
Matt Newcombe (MN)
Mike Jeffries-Harris (MJH)
Liz Dunne (LD)
James Peard (Note-taker)(JP)
Rachael Morgan (RM)
Richard Jones (RJ)
Ahmed Abu-Zayed (AAZ)
Sue Rodway-Dyer (SRD)
Claire Turner (CT)
ITEM 1.Welcome and Introduction
AWintroduced CTwho will be taking over from RMwhilst she is on maternity leave. She also introduced SRD who was invited to the meeting to talk to Item 3, section 3.11.
ITEM 2. Minutes of last meeting and actions arising
Agreed, subject to matter raised under Item 3.
Following the previous meeting AW asked if the OER risk register had now been absorbed into the current Education Enhancement register. MN informed the group that this is being implemented.
All other actions were satisfactorily addressed.
ITEM 3. Matters Arising
CT pointed out that in the minutes for our previous meeting we had stated that Paul Hirst has a remit for legal matters but this was inaccurate. Although Paul works closely with the legal team he is in fact the University’s Insurance Controller.
ITEM 4.Project Progress Report
1.0Introduction
TB introduced the Progress Report paper.
2.0Preliminary Outputs
It was noted that the interim report which TB had submitted to JISC in November had been well received. TB also reported on a follow-up conference call with JISC on 15/12/2009 at which they said they were particularly impressed with Exeter’s approach to keeping the wider community informed about its progress and experiences. They were also very supportive regarding our strict approach to IPR and were enthusiastic about how our experiences may help with the overall story, which JISC will be gathering from the various OER projects.
3.0Project Progress
TB outlined the WP’s as reported below.
3.1Staff Recruitment (WP-0)
Nothing to report
3.2Project Management (WP-1)
AW reminded the meeting that the Steering Group need to advise on what role, if any, OER has within the University. The answer to that question will have a large impact on the recommendations that the project makes to University senior management regarding any future plans for OER.
3.3Review of Current Practice/Challenges (WP-2)
TB reported thatthe abstract ‘The challenge of OER to academic practice’ which had been submitted to the OER10 conference at Cambridge had been accepted. He will give the presentation on the (22/3/2010). The accompanying paper will be written with other members of the core team.
TB repeated his request from the last meeting for everyone to peruse and contribute to the internal blog. These contributions will form a very important resource as part of the evaluation of the project.
Action 1 : All: More blog participation please.
3.4Quality Enhancement (WP-3)
TB brought to the attention of the meeting a paper from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) on different models for evaluating quality (see: They range from the formal to informal, each with varying resource implications. The Group was invited to read this paper and advise SB and TB for the paper they are writing for the VCEG.
Action 2 : All: to comment on the ALTC paper via the internal blog.
3.5Identification of Material’s Provenance (WP-4)
Nothing new to report.
3.6Licensing and Clearing (WP-5)
TB explained that in order to meet the requirement of clearing 360 credits we are taking a slightly revised approach to the impact of IPR issues. This new approach means that less time will be spent seeking alternative 'infringement-free' replacements.However, there will be no relaxation in the vigilance expended on checking material and problematic content may merely be removed. The Steering Group endorsed this revised approach and considered that it was a useful component of ‘telling the story’. AW did flag up the possibility that this revised approach might reduce the quality of the materials and suggested that a threshold should be introduced for the amount of content that could be removed from a module.
SBsuggested that anyone wishing to view / download content on Open Exeter should be made aware of the extent to which the material is ‘incomplete’. Having this information on the front page of a module was seen as being problematic as not everyone may view the front page. AAZSuggested it could be included within the metadata but again this presented the problem that the metadata would only be viewed when the content is downloaded initially. Once parts of the content have been broken down and used in various places this information may not be viewed by the user again. The meeting concluded that adding a readme text file to the learning objects with this information included could be the best approach.
TB reported that he had been in conversation with the three primary areas (DLL, Economics, and Geography) to seek reassurance that they were still able to ‘deliver’ the number of credits indicated in our successful bid. In response,MJH, on behalf of DLL, indicated that he has been trying to gather more materials. As much as possible he was trying to avoid seeking more materials from academics who had already contributed modules. This is partly due to the fact that we would like an eclectic mix of modules but also because he does not want to put too much pressure on academics that have already devoted time to the project.
RMcommented on the legal advice we had received from Eversheds. It was noted that their recommendations confirmed and reinforced our strict approach to IPR issues. The meeting confirmed its support for the need to have a facility whereby anyone can express their concern regarding any issues they may have with the materials being deposited. Part within the meeting and part subsequent to it, the following actions were agreed:
Actio 3 : RM : ascertain which creative commons licence-out (terms of use) is best suited and produce a draft for Eversheds to finalise.
Action 4 :following point 4 of the first advice note from Eversheds,MN to produce draft guidance notes for academics and then pass to RM / CT for comment.
Action 5 : CT : to produce a standard response letter to be used in the event that an infringement allegation is madeso we can aim to settle the matter before it becomes litigious.
Action 6 : AZZ :to identify a place on Open Exeter where the response identified in Action 5 will be located and arrange for it to be inserted.
Action 7 : SB / TB to raise in paper for VCEG who is liable (centre / College?) re. any insurance policy excess.
3.7Interoperability (WP-6)
TB noted thatthe team had begun packaging material, ready to be deposited. Material will be deposited in two different forms. There will be a normal zip file which will allow the users to simply extract and view the content as well as in a form that will allow users to easily extract to a VLE whilst maintaining the structure of a course, if relevant.
3.8Metadata (WP-7)
AZZ reported that he has revised his schema and it can be viewed at :
3.9Delivery Platforms (WP-8)
TBreported that the development of the repository was considerably behind schedule and raised his concerns in terms of a serious risk to the successful completion of the project. A combination of technical imponderables, personnel changes and pressure from other priorities on those doing the work were identified as the issues. TB reported that conversations were urgently in hand to resolve this situation.
Update : a revised and extremely tight schedule has subsequently been agreed and expert staff have been dedicated (in both senses) to the work. Primarily, this involves Kevin Evans with considerable expert support from AAZ. Tasks have been categorised into two phases. The first phase was completed on time, by 28/3/2010. In summary, this means that the repository now works, albeit in a very primitive form. The second phase, to complete other technical tasks and all the presentational issues is currently going to plan.
SB suggested that the material could explore using other reputable repositories (TB informed the meeting that we have recently received an invitation from the OU to do just this) as an interim measure though RM indicated that we may need to revise our ‘licence-in’ document if we were to deposit in other repositories. This change would necessarily include deposition in OpenJorum.
Action 8 : TB to report to Chair of Steering Group on progress
3.10Tracking (WP-9)
TBnoted that on the 19/11/2009, several colleagues attended a JISC Elluminate session on Tracking. A recording is available at :
3.11Training Materials/Dissemination (WP-10)
TB informed the meeting that SRD had carried out an evaluation of the staff development workshop which was held at Exeter on 17/11/2009 and the report will be made available shortly. One reoccurring issue that was raised in the report was that people had felt slightly confused by the mixed messages from the Cloudworks agenda and Exeter’s OER agenda.
Update : the report is now available from :
3.12Ongoing and Final Evaluation (WP11)
Discussion of this workpackage was taken in parallel with Agenda Item-5 (Plan for paper for VCEG regarding future of OER at Exeter). A very useful discussion took place around the draft outline of a paper produced by SB and TB, to be presented to VCEG at a later date.
Action 9 : SB and TBto write a full draft, to be presented at the next Steering Group Meeting.
ITEM 5. Budget
The latest budget details were not available at the time of the meeting.
Action 10 : TB to circulate budget when available.
Update : the budget details were circulated to the Steering Group on13/1/2010, p.m. They are also available at . (N.B. the excel spreadsheet requires a password to open it. This has been circulated to all members of the Steering Group).
ITEM 5.Plan for paper for VCEG regarding future of OER at Exeter
See Item 4, section 3.12
Item 6 AOB
None.
Next meeting : 17th March 2010
1