Creating OER for Versioning: Experts and Learners

Maina, M.F. & Guàrdia Ortiz, L. (2012). Creating OER for Versioning: Experts and Learners as Knowledge Contributors. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2012 (pp. 250-259). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/41596.

Creating OER for Versioning: Experts and Learners as Knowledge Contributors Marcelo Maina & Lourdes Guàrdia eLearn Center Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: We introduce an ongoing research and development of an open educational resources’ (OER) authoring model for versioning. The approach highlights the importance of thinking OER in action, immerse in a learning situation. This exercise assists in the parallel outlining of leaning activities that in turn contribute to shape the educational piece. Learning activities produce learning outputs that are, in this context, interpreted as learner generated content. The learners’ productions can be integrated within the OER resulting in augmented and revised version of the original material.

1. Introduction Professors and teachers usually develop educational resources adapted to their course needs and organizational context. Open and distance universities more commonly establish formal procedures for the elaboration and production of educational materials that constitute a significant part of their education delivery. The enterprise of authoring these materials go from craft approaches to more professional and distributed processes. While in the former, teachers are responsible to create, edit and produce the final output offered to the student (e.g. course notes), in the latter, subject matter experts (SME) are responsible for the content, while a set of media professionals contribute to the refinement of mock-ups according to media language specificities and to the production of the resource using professional technology (hardware and software). Advancements in pedagogy and technology, continuous need for content renewal, as well as increasing demand for cost reductions, challenge the tailored approach while provide new arguments and solutions to an enhanced craft process for the creation of educational resources. Theories of collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999), situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991), and networked learning (Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson, and McConnell, 2004; Siemens, 2004) together with available web2.0 applications and social software are redefining not only the educational landscaped but also the way in which educational resources are thought and produced, and the role of learners in knowledge production (Dabbag & Reo, 2011). We present in this paper a first reflection on a model of authoring open educational resources (OER) for versioning intended to assist teachers and subject matter experts. The approach highlights the role of the learner as an active participant in the creation of versions of the OER throughout a learning process. The modifications introduced to the OER are interpreted as the outputs of the learning activities. In this sense the model integrates the notion of learner generated content (LGC) and proposes the development of a learning scenario in parallel to the creation of the OER.

2. Model basis 2.1 Authoring for openness There is a whole movement supporting initiatives around “open educational resources” (OER) (Atkins, Seely Brown, & Hammond, 2007). OER more accepted definition present them as “teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others” (idem, p.4). According to Lane (2010), the notion of openness can be associated to six different dimensions including legal, practical, economical, technical, pedagogical and transformative issues. The legal aspects are based on the release of the educational resource under one of the available copyright options offered by Creative Commons. Practicalities attend to the provision

- 250 -

of access to the resource that is also facilitated by technical features that easy the use, reuse and rework of the available content. The economic dimension refers to an organizational level that guarantees the sustainability of the OER institutional project. Finally, pedagogical and transformative dimensions call for the rethinking of the roles and goals of educational resources in learning and an invitation to innovate both practices and learning solutions. 2.2 Authoring for learning Openness in OER means “giving away” a piece of content for reappropriation and resignification by others. An OER may be used by the learner/s for their knowledge development but also by the teacher for learning design. Taking into account this two main generic uses of an OER, we are guided in the development of an OER creation process with the explicit intention of facilitating learning. Authoring for learning supposes focusing not only in the development and encapsulation of knowledge within a finished piece, but explicitly or implicitly informing of boundaries, potential use and purposes of this “open-ended” output. Mulder (2011) proposes a layered view of the OER within a learning process that is useful for thinking about different aspects that make up an educational resource that supports actual learning. Enabling learning demands much more that content availability and access. An analysis of “self-study materials” is helpful in the identification of the clustered layers that support learning. The author identifies at least three interplaying layers: content/knowledge, exercises/practice/self-tests, and didactics/guidance. Two additional layers related to examination and tutoring services close the cycle of a certified learning process (which the author names open learning services-OLS). This layered view allows separating the content/knowledge layer from the pedagogy one, facilitating reuse and repurposing.

Figure 1. OER layers for actual learning. The interwoven view of an OER as part of a learning process also provides clues on how to author educational resources taking into account their use. The purpose and potential uses become part of the framework for authoring and provide information that may have an impact on the OER structure itself. 2.3 Authoring for participation and versioning The availability of cost-free and easy-of-use “productive technologies” for the creation and sharing of content has enabled everyone to become producers of knowledge capable of immediate delivering to the world. This fact has reify the “user generated content” (UGC) enabling a culture of participation, erasing cultural and organizational barriers for delivering, and giving out-loud voice to those willing to express or share their thoughts. This social reading of productive technologies, while keeping same principles and intentions, is somewhat different when it is applied to the educational context. There is a long tradition in the educational and educational informing disciplines that advocate for social learning and the role of artifacts in this knowledge

- 251 -

construction that is learning. Web2.0 and under-development technologies are key enablers of learning views that emphasize its social aspects and interprets the learner as a creator and contributor to knowledge (Conole, 2008). The notion of learner generated content (LGC) captures main aspects of the user generated content definition but situates this activity within an educational setting for the accomplishment of learning purposes (Pérez-Mateo, Maina, Guitert, & Romero, 2011). The learner, while transiting a learning path, generates knowledge that is usually captured in an output for assessment and evaluation. The generated output shows evidences of learning and, instead of being only taken as a “disposable” piece that has demonstrated the learner’s achievements; it can also be seen as a useful resource for other learners. The studies on the subject highlight LGC potential for publishing the learners’ own ideas, demonstrating communicative and presentation competences as well as digital literacy, incorporating views from “outside” the classroom, personalizing learning (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007; Lee., McLoughlin, & Chan, 2008; Dale & Povey, 2009); creating unavailable resources for learning (Philip, Unruh, Lachman, & Pawlina, 2008); reflecting on authoritative sources (Chang, Kennedy, & Petrovic, 2008); collaborating rather than competing (Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008). The perennial trait added to LGC, when applied to the rework of an OER may constitute a version of the original content. In fact, the OER movement encourages the release of the educational resource under licenses that allow for the creation of “derivatives” including a whole series of actions: reworking, rephrasing, mashing, augmenting, etc. The resource is seen as “moldable”, in a state of “perpetual beta” (O’Reilly, 2005). This stage of continuous development is congruent with the notion of versions (Thorpe,, Kubiak, & Thorpe, 2003) that meet user requirements at specific times and situations.

3. A model for the creation of OER for leaner versioning For the development of a model of SME OER design for learner versioning we have adopted the five OER “design principles” proposed by Kahle (2008) to which we have added a sixth one, specific to learning. This basic structure helps us organize and reflect on those aspects needing further development according to our purpose. 1. Design for access – economic, technical but also particular cognitive and physical aspects of an OER. 2. Design for agency - the degree of user action and control over the OER; 3. Design for ownership - allowing people to get involved in the OER through open licensing; 4. Design for participation - encouraging community involvement in developing or extending the OER; 5. Design for experience - take note of the aesthetics of use as users will quickly make judgments on this; 6. Design for learning – develop an integrated or aside (companion) support for learning. 3.1 The pedagogical dimension The hybrid approach to OER for versioning blurs the boundaries between educational and technological resources as two separated entities, one offering content-knowledge and the other supporting the development of a learning process. Productive technologies (wikis, blogs, cloud computing) are offering sufficient functionalities to rethink this spitted approach to knowledge consumption and production, enabling learners become actual “prosumers”. From this viewpoint, learning resources and learning activities interplay is put forward (Littlejohn et al., 2008). Fowlers and Mayers (1999) differentiate between primary, secondary and tertiary courseware. Primary courseware is produced by SME or professionals and its main purpose is to present information which is introduced to the learner as a way to raise awareness of new concepts. Secondary courseware is elaborated by teachers and it tailored from primary sources for challenging learners’ own knowledge by performing tasks that let them construct a personal view. Finally, tertiary courseware (an expression that predates LGC but that can be easily associated) makes explicit the learners’ integration of knowledge which is externalized in the form of outputs that document reflections, discussions or practices. Tertiary courseware usually uses primary courseware under the guidance of secondary courseware. It consists in the evidence learners provide and that serves for evaluation purposes. But it can be useful as a supplementary resource for learning purposes by others. Under this lens, tertiary courseware constitutes captured and encapsulated learner content-knowledge, also

- 252 -

known as learner generated content aimed at use and reuse. For our purposes, the OER creation for versioning involves authoring primary courseware, developing or outlining secondary courseware, and taking into account tertiary courseware. The extension to which the authoring process takes place may vary according to each situation. The pedagogy layer relates to the learning process and learning activities that will use the OER as a mean. The intention of offering versioning capabilities to the OER calls for a special attention to the outputs of the learning activities (plausible of being integrated in a new edition of the OER). In this sense, target competences and/or learning objectives may condition or alter the OER content extension or level of detail. The versioning relates to the learning evidences as outputs of the learning activities. To assist in the definition of the expected outputs from learners we have developed an output content taxonomy as follows: Extending

Adding more information, examples, testimonies, cases on a given specific subject.

Synthesizing

Adding a synthesis of a given chunk of content.

Reworking

Rephrasing, restructuring, reusing, mashing up or remixing content according to different perspectives or purposes (repurposing).

Completing

Developing new knowledge based on content omissions, new available knowledge or new generated knowledge.

Questioning

Introducing open questions and arguments that may contradict or make evident content flawless, inconsistencies or biases.

Discussing

Exchanging ideas around a subject, defending and taking positions on controversial aspects of the subject.

Commenting

Giving personal opinions about a given subject

Valuing

Expressing a quantifiable / measurable judgment on a subject

Table 1: A taxonomy of output content level (learner generated content) For the purpose of providing the designer some conceptual tool that support the elaboration of the learning activities, we have adopted the updated by Anderson & David (2001) Bloom’s taxonomy which provides a rich framework to designing activities in terms of cognitive processes. In order to cover main dimensions of the learning activity design, we have also integrated the “task taxonomy” (Conole & Fill, 2005; Conole, 2007) which adds guidance on the type of task involved in the activity. This last taxonomy assist in the definition of the kind of teaching support, the tools and resources to be used, the assignation of roles and envisioned interactions, the t ype of assessment. In order to facilitate the design of learning activities taking into account these three complimentary aspects, we have mapped them together according to their logical correspondence (see table 2). The output content level taxonomy reflects and captures what has been operated (modified, added) on the content through the development of the learning activity. This taxonomy assists in the designing of the learning activities as well as takes into account the expected modifications that will be introduced into the resulting OER version. In this sense it is a bridge between the learning objectives, the task level and the output. Our model emphasizes the context of implementation as another input to the OER elaboration. It demands a back-and-forth excise of pivoting between the content aspects and the learning process. In this sense, the OER in not thought, at a design instance, as a complete independent piece of knowledge, but influenced by implementations issues. Based on these principles, we can draw some guidelines to undertake the process of OER content structure definition and development: Outline the OER content structure based on the field of knowledge: first OER content structure. Introduce you view according to your expertise: first revision. Analyze and modify the content structure according to contextual constraints like target competences, learner’s characteristics, learning objectives: second revision. Review and adjust the content structure based on possible (or available) learning activities: third revision.

- 253 -

Rework the content structure according to envisioned learning activities’ outcomes: forth revision. Begin developing the content structure and revise systematically looking for OER alignment with the learning process. You can either develop or suggest learning activities throughout the authoring process.

Learning activity Output content level Extending

Synthesizing

Reworking

Completing Questioning

Discussing Commenting

Valuing

Cognitive processes level** Anderson & David, et al. (2001) Create generating (hypothesizing) planning (designing) producing (construct) Understand interpreting (clarifying, paraphrasing, representing, translating) exemplifying (illustrating, instantiating) classifying (categorizing, subsuming) summarizing (abstracting, subsuming) inferring (concluding, extrapolating, interpolating, predicting) comparing (contrasting, mapping, matching) explaining (constructing models) Analyze differentiating (discriminating, distinguishing, focusing, selecting) organizing (finding coherence, integrating, outlining, parsing, structuring) attributing (deconstructing) Create* Understand* Analyze*

Analyze* Analyze* Evaluate generating (hypothesizing) planning (designing) producing (construct) Evaluate*

Task level** (Conole, 2007) Productive Learners actively construct an artifact. Creating, Producing, Writing, Drawing, Composing, Synthesizing, Re-mixing Productive*

Information Handling Learners gather, classify, or manipulate resources. Gathering, Ordering, Classifying, Selecting, Analyzing, Manipulating Productive* Productive* Productive* Communicative Learners engage in dialogic activities Discussing, Presenting, Debating, Critiquing Communicative* Communicative*

Communicative*

Table 2: Correspondences between levels of a learning activity. (* associated verbs to the element of the taxonomy apply as in their first appearance / ** we have not included those elements of the original taxonomy that do not have a correspondence). 3.2 The technological dimension The six OER design principles (see point 3) apply in different manner to shape the OER implementation. The OER for versioning is supposed to support a whole set of learning activities, from reading/consulting, to a series of manipulations of reuse and rework of the content. In this sense, the OER support is both a media to present information and a tool for further development. This intertwined approach of resources for presenting content and building knowledge through a learning process is addressed by Laurillard (2002) who developed a classification of media according to their affordances in supporting learning. This classification is particularly valuable since it covers a full range of media that supports the learning process in different ways of growing involvement and complexity. Narrative media form is suitable for presenting information (text, audio or video) in a structured manner that facilitates its

- 254 -

consultation. Interactive media adds non linearity of content and it provides for learner’s exploration and discovery including a limited beforehand established feedback. Adaptive media, like simulations and 2D/3D virtual environments, give the learner more control on the interaction and provide for learning engagement and learning personalization. Communication media, synchronous or asynchronous, support learners and teacher exchange and may include functionalities that keep traces of the interaction useful for reflection activities. Social media has multiply this media form to limits above imaginable a few years ago. Finally, productive media like blogs and wikis supports and enables capturing the outputs of the learning experience conveying most of the affordances of this media form classification. Laurrillard’s media classification can be traced to match our proposed output content taxonomy as follows: Content level activity

Media form narrative

interactive

Extending Synthesizing Reworking Completing Questioning Discussing Commenting Valuing

communicative

X X

adaptive

productive

X

X X X X X

X X X

Table 3. Affordances of media form for learning activities content level. 3.3 An integrative conceptual framework With the previous matching between the media classification and the output content level taxonomy of learning activities it is possible to track the whole process of designing a learning scenario and determining the use of the OER. The following integrative framework constitutes a first version of a model for the authoring of OER with the explicit intention to be augmented by learners while performing the learning activities.

Figure 2. An OER authoring model for versioning: The conceptual view

- 255 -

4. Applying and refining the model To better illustrate the outlined model we introduce a concrete experience in authoring an OER presenting the instructional design and technology foundations. This OER is implemented in a course of the Master in Education and ICT (e-learning) offered by the Open University of Catalonia (UOC). The authoring is a collaborative action between two professors in their role of SME (subject matter experts) and responsible for the course delivery. Before undertaken the authoring process we analyzed our envisioned OER through the lens of Lane (2010) six dimensions for setting up the OER scene: 1. Legal: The UOC has already adopted a common Creative Commons (CC) license applicable to all learning materials authored by SME. It is integrated in the contract that the author signs with the University. The best combination of CC for our purposes is the “Attribution-Share Alike” which lets other rework the content with the condition of citing the source and releasing the modified version with the same copyright permissions. 2. Practical: We ensure access to the content as the OER is implemented in an open wiki. The wiki platform as a container and tool for the support of the learning activities provides a series of advantages to work with. It supports the development of a collaborative writing process as well as the embedding or linking of content developed or identified elsewhere. In terms of accessibility the wiki is available from anywhere and from multiple devices (including portable ones like tablets and smartphones). Most common formats are encouraged (mp3, pdf, flash animation, etc.). Additional features for content customization according to personal characteristics are to be tested: zoom options, reading widget, etc. The portability of content, like printing options as well as download features is also taken into account. 3. Technical: The main platform for the presentation of the SME OER is a wiki. This becomes the place where learners will rework and/or integrate their learning outputs according to the nature of each learning activity. The learning activity is developed and then “captured” in the wiki itself or it may be linked, referenced or embedded in a specific page. 4. Pedagogic: The original OER is authored taking into account the learning context of implementation and produced together with a series of learning activities. Under a learner generated content approach, the activities’ learning outcomes are externalized as learning outputs integrated into the OER. These learning evidences linked to the original OER produce “versions” of the document. An evaluation/validation process takes place “during” and “after” the learning process for determining the LGC that will remain part of the OER. A quality LGC framework is applied for this purpose (Pérez-Mateo, Maina, Guitert, & Romero, 2011). 5. Economic: We adopt the outlined OER model proposed by Mulder (2011) (see figure 1) which establishes a series of layers required to provide a complete learning experience with OER. The first OER layer corresponds to the content/knowledge dimension. This cores component is released with a Creative Commons license (BY-NC-ND). Additional layers correspond to pedagogical components (didactics, exercises, activities, self-evaluation, self-driven practice, explicit guidance) as well as facilitation, support, evaluation and crediting aspects of the whole process dealing with learning and certification. 6. Transformative: The OER is undertaken with a mixed approach that adopts the already in place procedure of SME authoring at UOC and a LGC pedagogical strategy. This hybrid process straightens the authoring process to the learning experience and raises the importance of the knowledge generated by students to a higher level of recognition, going beyond the evaluation of learning outcomes to the acknowledgement of the learning potential of content developed by learners in a flexible but controlled learning situation. 4.1 Developing content and pedagogy OER layers In order to establish the OER content scope and boundaries, the first step in our authoring experience was to collect and discuss the most recognized and the current authoritative sources on the subject. As expertise plays an important role, we further discussed individual points of view and outlined a first content structure. At the same time we began focusing on the course target competences and trace some learning activities identifying their outputs. This complementary document helped us redefine the OER content structure extracting some sections, now envisioned as learning outputs from learners. We briefly present some examples: One learning objective of the course is to create or reinforce the professional identity through the exploration of the historical roots and evolution of the field. We present in the OER an introduction and main milestones of the IDT field. We then design a learning activity where the learners are asked

- 256 -

to explore in detail the topic by seeking more information and build a timeline, which is integrated into the OER. Another learning objective is to develop a personal view of the field, identifying main theories, authors, issues, and trends. The OER presents the IDT knowledge base and a learning activity consists in the elaboration of a conceptual map of the field. One specific learning objective points to the adoption of a “design” perspective including the need for the translation of descriptive theories into more practical guidelines or principles. An activity is proposed then to the learner. This decision was followed by the elimination of a sub-section of the first OER structure covering this aspect. While the OER develops and takes shape, the definition of a learning activities are refined. It is a tuning and matching process that supports the development of the OER and the learning scenario altogether. It is also a process that allows working the content and the pedagogical layers independently but in a coherent manner, ensuring the integrity of both products. At the same time it allows using them separately with no significant loss of meaning. This multiplies the OER reuse capabilities and repurposing. 4.2 The platform: Bloggifying the wiki For the purpose of creating a learning experience based on learner generated content we have developed the OER with an aside set of learning activities aiming at the development of the course target competences. Implementation of the OER should respond not only to the requirements of access and accessibility but also those emerging from the envisioned activities. We created a list of tool functionalities grouped by categories as follows: Content presentation: All formats o Text, audio, video, embedding, linking, dynamic content (rss feeds, widgets), university library Customizing / accessibility: Providing access to all o Text size, zoom, color palette, reading (images with labels) Productivity: Supporting the online individual and collaborative activities o Tagging and folksonomy, spelling, dictionary, mash-ups / embedding, addition of dynamic content: web syndication (journals, blogs, etc.), annotation Social appraisal: Allowing learners to express on the content o Rating, commenting Sharing: facilitating sharing options o e-mail, social networks, social bookmarking Follow-up: Facilitating ways to keep track of OER changes o RSS (on page editing, on comments), e-mail Output-portability: Providing options of printing or accessing the OER from different devices o Printing, mobile devices Roles and privileges: Allowing the possibility to differentiate rights to view and/or edit the whole or parts of the OER. Maintenance: Providing easy ways to make backs-up, reinstalling and editing. Studying different technological alternatives we concluded that the best available tool was a wiki. Wiki’s affordances allow thinking in terms of rich content delivery but also provide for engaging learning experiences of knowledge creation. Wikis in general do not support all the listed functionalities, but open source wikis like MediaWiki allow the addition of extensions covering most of them. With the technical support of the University we have extended the MediaWiki to cover most of the listed requirements and worked also on the design of a user-friendly interface, enhancing the wiki usability and improving the look-and-feel of the tool.

5. Conclusions Thinking about learning in the context of the digital culture supposes the proposal of new educational solutions highlighting participation and networking. In these new scenarios the role of the student is reinforced and the teacher’s expected functions are put on the side of the facilitation of learning. But a much more careful learning design solution is demanded, and so for, teachers design skill and digital literacy are key. Authoring

- 257 -

educational resources and designing learning experiences become parts of a whole enterprise of mutual influence. We have presented a first attempt in formalizing a model that assist the teacher in the creation of OER with the special intention of versioning. This idea is based mainly in the understanding of any content/knowledge resource as an unfinished piece. For the purpose of aligning the OER with a pedagogical strategy, and to support an actual learning experience, we have introduced the notion of learner generated content and highlighted the importance of the co-elaboration of the OER together with the outlining of learning activities for its use. The context of implementation, both pedagogical and technological, helps identify enablers and constraints that impact in the shape and kind of OER developed. This context sensitive approach of authoring OER is balanced with the layered view that provides a framework for working content and pedagogy complimentary but separately. In this way, two different situations are supported and facilitated: the integration of the OER within a learning experience and the reuse and repurposing of the content/knowledge layer in other learning situations. Besides facilitating the OER integration into a learning experience, this approach also shortens the differences between media and tools, as the educational resource is not only a reading or consulting material, but a moldable piece of knowledge that can be transformed through the process of learning.

References Anderson, L.W. and David R. Krathwohl, D.R. (eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Atkins, D. E., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A.L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Boettcher, J.V. (2006, February 28). The rise of student performance content. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2006/02/the-rise-of-student-performance-content.aspx Chang, R., Kennedy, G. & Petrovic, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and user-created content: Students negotiating shifts in academic authority. ASCILITE 2008, Melbourne. Conole, G. (2007). Describing learning activities. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 81-91). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Conole, G. (2008). New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies, Ariadne, 56. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/ Conole, G. C. & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2005-8/275 Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2010). Back to the future: Tracing the roots and learning affordances of social software. In M. Lee, & C. McLoughlin (eds.), Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 1-20). Dale, C. & Povey G. (2009). An evaluation of learner-generated content and podcasting. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 8 (1), 117-123. doi:10.3794/johlste.81.214 Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier. Fowler, C., & Mayes, T. (1999). Learning relationships: from theory to design. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 7 (3), 6–16. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (eds.) (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hedberg , M. & Larson, L. (2009). Rethinking pedagogical practice and educational media development. 2009 NMC Summer Conference. Monterey, California. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/proceedings2009/papers/media-wheel/ Kahle, D. (2008) Designing Open Educational Technology, In Ilyoshi, T., and Vijay Kumar, M.S. (Eds.), Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge (pp 27-45), USA: MIT Press. Lane, A. (2010). Designing for innovation around OER. Journal of Interactive Media In Education, 2. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/view/2010-2

- 258 -

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. NY: Cambridge University Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer. Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learnergenerated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4 (10), 21-34. Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C, & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Education Technology, 39 (3). 501-521. Lippincott, Joan K. (2007). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. EDUCAUSE Review, 42 (6), 16–17. Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & McGill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, 50 (3), 757-771. Lane, A. (2010). Designing for innovation around OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2010-2 Mulder, F. (2011, March 4). Towards national strategies for OER HE. EADTU OER-HE Stakeholder Workshop, Leuven. Retrieved from http://alturl.com/o8scp O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html Pérez-Mateo, M., Maina, M., Romero, M., & Guitert, M. (2011). Learner generated content: Quality from the students’ point of view. EDMEDIA 2011 (pp.2520-2529), Lisbon, Portugal: AACE. Philip, C.T., Unruh, K.P., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2008). An explorative learning approach to teaching clinical anatomy using student generated content. Anatomical Sciences Education, 1 (3), 106-110. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/ Jan_05/article01.htm Thorpe, M., Kubiak, C., & Thorpe, K. (2003). Designing for reuse and versioning. In A. Littlejohn (ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp.106-118). London: Kogan Page. Wheeler, S. & Yeomans, P. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 987-995.

- 259 -