Workshop for UK higher education librarians, at SCONUL Conference 2009, on repositories for teaching & learning materials (including learning object repositories). Covers major decision points when considering setting up an institutional t&l repository; considering the community your repository will be serving; and developing a business model and business case for repositories.

1. Repositories for
Teaching and Learning
Materials
Workshop facilitated by Sarah Currier
SCONUL Conference 2009
Bournemouth, England, 12 June 2009

2. Workshop plan
• Introduce myself
• Find out who’s here? What are
you interested in?
• Landscape of t&l repositories
• Issues for planning, setting
up, managing and evaluating t&l
repositories
• Some examples
Discussion throughout!

3. An initial note
You’ll notice I didn’t call this talk:
Learning Object Repositories
• The term learning object is no longer used
much in relation to repositories
• Learning objects are only one type of teaching
and learning resource
• It’s a technical-sounding term that is off-
putting to the intended user community

4. What do we want to achieve?
• How many already have formal repositories
for teaching and learning materials?
– How many of these are integrated with institutional
research outputs repositories?
– How many are institutional repositories?
– How many are faculty or subject department repositories?
– How many are members of wider consortium repository
(e.g. Jorum, WM-Share, IRISS LX)?
– How many are integrated with VLEs?
– How many are open to the Web? (vs. staff only?)

5. What do we want to achieve?
• How many are thinking about or planning
repositories for t&l materials?
– How does your institution currently deal with
educational materials?
– Who is involved in the planning/set-up?
• Library? Educational development dept? Subject depts
/ academics? Students? Others?
– Are you planning to use same repository system as
for research outputs?

6. What do we want to achieve?
• Anyone just started a JISC Open Educational
Resources project?
• Any other reasons for being here?

7. In the beginning…
Institution VLE Other VLEs
eLearning
Web sites
Slide by Charles Duncan, Intrallect Ltd.

8. Fully-functioned…
Institution VLE Wikis, Blogs Other VLEs
eLearning
Research outputs
Open access
portals
Scanned ePrints Images Private
RAE Web sites CLA reporting “Collection”
evaluation requirements Portal
Slide by Charles Duncan, Intrallect Ltd.

9. Landscape: some models
• Two JISC outputs to help with planning,
setting up and evaluating t&l repositories:
– CD-LOR Structured Guidelines
• Focus on the communities of users and stakeholders
you intend to support with your repository
– Good Intentions: Business Models for Sharing
Educational Materials
• Focus on how to develop an appropriate business case
and business model for your repository

10. Landscape: dimensions (1 of 4)
• Stand-alone repository system
– Focus on specific functionality for educational
technologies, integration with VLEs, Web services
integration and Web 2.0 support
• Blended repository
– Bring together research outputs and t&l
materials? Other resource types?

11. Landscape: dimensions (2 of 4)
• Commercial system
– intraLibrary, Equella, Hive, CoRE
• All built to support t&l materials (including LOs / content packages); all
still require technical work, technical support, possibly spend on
development
• Open source system
– ePrints, Dspace, Fedora (DuraSpace), Digital Commons
• Not set up for t&l materials, require your own developers or spend on
their developers, a lot of flexibility about how to implement
• Homegrown system
• VLE’s built-in “repository”
– Any good ones yet? Not that I’ve seen!
– Look out MrCute for MOODLE though.
• Distributed, personalised, Web2.0 approach?

12. Landscape: dimensions (3 of 4)
• Implement locally on your own server
• Use hosted service
... also:
• Institutional repository
• Subject/faculty-level repositories
• Work with national or regional service, e.g. use Jorum to store
all your local materials
• Join up with or start a multi-institutional subject
consortium, e.g. IRISS LX (social work/social care), IVIMEDS

13. Landscape: dimensions (4 of 4)
• Sharing resources with ... who?
– Within institution only?
– Within subject/faculty level only?
– Open: share with other UK HE/FE?
– Open: share with the whole world?
• NB: JISC Open Educational Resources Programme will
be encouraging latter two- does anyone here have an
OER project?
• JorumOpen planned- Beta deposit service for trial now!

14. First things first
What is the problem to which the repository is a
solution? And who identifies this as a
problem?
What will be the measure of success for your
repository?
Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007

15. Thinking outside the repository box
“We have used the term 'service' to describe the various
infrastructures that exist to support sharing, but must stress
that this includes a wide range of activities including those
supported by formal repositories and/or open social software
services, as well as informal mechanisms within or across
institutions, between lecturers and/or students. This term [...]
was deliberately chosen to highlight the wide range of
activities, mechanisms and support that are offered to
encourage and facilitate sharing, including, but not limited to
static storage of content.”
McGill, Currier, Duncan & Douglas, 2008

16. Thinking outside the repository box
Implications:
• Think about the places, ways your intended community
works, socialises, shares and communicates
• Think about interoperability
– What if you need to migrate your content in 5 years?
– What metadata specs and standards to you need?
• Think about a service-based approach (Web services that is):
what components do you need to interact with?
– Facebook? Twitter? Delicious or Diigo tagging? Widgets? Most
importantly: RSS feeds!
– Student and staff records?
– VLEs and other campus systems?

17. Thinking about communities (1 of 5)
If you build it, will they come?
“*...+ the pedagogical, social, and organisational aspects of these
communities have not been at the forefront in the design and
development of [learning object repositories]. Research has
consistently demonstrated that the most substantial barriers
in uptake of technology are rooted in these factors”
Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007

18. Thinking about communities (2 of 5)
Community dimensions to think about
(1) Purpose: the shared goal/interest of the community; the reason why the
community was formed in the first place
(2) Composition: the number and types of (sub-)communities to be supported
(3) Dialogue: modes of participation and communication (online, face-to-face, or
mixed) adopted by the community
(4) Roles and responsibilities: of community members
(5) Coherence: whether the community is close-knit or loosely confederated/transient
(6) Context: the broader ecology within which the community exists (for example,
professional bodies; governments; implicit and explicit rules that govern the
functioning of community; ground rules of conduct; rewards and incentives
mechanisms; etc.)
(7) Pedagogy: teaching and learning approaches used in the community (for example,
problem-based learning, collaborative learning, etc.)

19. Thinking about communities (3 of 5)
Repository dimensions to think about
(1) Purpose: including t&l repositories created to support professional development of
teachers, or for the exchange of specific resource formats, such as sound
files, learning designs, or student assignments
(2) Subject discipline: including t&l repositories created to support mono-disciplinary
or multidisciplinary communities
(3) Scope: including t&l repositories supporting
departmental, institutional, regional, national, or international communities
(4) Sector: for example school, higher education, further education, hobby-based
learning, work-based, or lifelong learning
(5) Contributors: such as teachers, students, publishers, institutions, funded projects
(6) Business model: concerning the business, trading, and management framework
underpinning the repository

20. Thinking about communities (4 of 5)
Thinking about engaging communities
• Iterative, agile design: be ready to change tack, make mistakes
• Multi-disciplinary team from the start:
– Educational development, library, staff development, learning services, technical
services, academic and student representatives
• Engagement and support vital from line managers at
departmental, school, faculty, institutional level: gives people permission
to put time and effort into working with repository, sharing materials
• Talk to others doing the same thing (JISC CETIS Repositories
Community, JISC-Repositories list, software user
communities, international contacts)
• If you can, have a designated repository manager from the start. Can be
librarian or educational technologist, as long as they are keen!

21. Thinking about communities (5 of 5)
Thinking about engaging individuals
• How do they currently store, back up, share and discover t&l resources?
• What pain points can you solve first off, to get them engaged?
• What’s juicy for them? E.g. Showing off their good resources on the front
page of your website! (E.g. ALT Learning Object Competition).
• Be aware of time & other pressures: sometimes engaging with new
technology/processes takes more time at the start; make sure it pays off
for them fairly quickly re supporting their work and saving them time.
• Identify champions in user communities to mentor others
• Mentor and support users by choosing a specific task they can easily
achieve, or a specific problem they can solve with your repository

22. Thinking about your business case
for sharing t&l materials
 70% of respondents to a 2006 survey re-purposed
resources created by others - CD-LOR Personal
Resource Management Strategies Review
Margaryan, 2006
BUT:
 “there is little tradition or articulated desire for
sharing learning materials in the sector in the ways
made possible by these technologies” - TrustDR
Casey, Proven & Dripps, 2007

23. Using “Good Intentions”
• Good Intentions project developed a template to
gather different existing business models for sharing
t&l resources, and evaluating affordances, successes
• Created a matrix to map different elements of
business cases to different business models
– Too big to show it all here: worth following up, but here
are examples

24. Business model template

25. Finance models

26. Service models

27. Supplier/consumer models

28. Issues affecting models

29. Impact of business cases
 Significant impact
 Some impact
 Possible with right conditions
 No impact

30. General benefits to global Open CoP Subject-based Institutional National Informal
community
Supporting subject-
discipline communities to
share
Encourages innovation and
experimentation
Shares expertise and
resources between
developed and developing
countries
Supports re-use and re-
purposing
Supports community input
to metadata through
tagging, notes, reviews
Supports effective retrieval
through professionally
created metadata
Ensures trust through
appropriate licensing

31. Business cases - Global
Case Subject Open
Supporting subject-based communities to share  
Encourages innovation and experimentation 
Shares expertise and resources between developed and developing 
countries
Supporting re-use and re-purposing  
Supporting continued development of standards and interoperability  
Supporting continued development of tools for sharing and exchange  
Supporting sharing and reuse of individual assets  
Helps develop critical mass of materials in particular subject areas  
Supporting ease of access through search engines such as Google 

32. Business cases - National
Case Subject Open
Cost efficiencies  
Decrease in duplication  
Supports cross-institutional sharing  
Provides access to non-educational bodies such as employers, 
professional bodies, trade unions, etc
Supports a broad vision of sharing across the country 
Promotes the concept of lifelong learning 
Supports shared curricula 
Supports discovery of most used/highest quality resources  
Supports the notion that educational institutions should leverage taxpayers 
money by allowing free sharing and reuse of resources
Mitigates the cost of keeping resources closed 
Mitigates the risk of doing nothing in a rapidly changing environment 
Supports sustained long-term sharing 

33. Business cases - Institutional
Case Subject Open
Increased transparency and quality of learning materials  
Encourages high quality learning and teaching resources  
Supports modular course development  
Maintaining and building institution’s reputation - globally 
Attracting new staff and students to institutions – recruitment tool for 
students and prospective employers
Shares expertise efficiently within institutions 
Supports the altruistic notion that sharing knowledge is in line with 
academic traditions and a good thing to do
Likely to encourage review of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment 
Enhancing connections with external stakeholders by making resources 
visible

34. Business cases - Teachers
Case Subject Open
Increased personal recognition  
Supports sharing of knowledge and teaching practice 
Encourages improvement in teaching practice  
Supports immediate one-off instances of sharing  
Supports attribution 
Encourages multi-disciplinary collaboration and sharing 
Supports CPD and offers evidence of this 

35. Business cases - Learners
Case Subject Open
Easy and free access to learning material for learners 
Increased access options for students enrolled on courses (particularly 
remote students)
Easily accessed through student-owned technologies 
Increased access for non-traditional learners (widening participation) 
Likely to encourage self-regulated and independent learning 
Likely to increase demand for flexible learning opportunities 
Likely to increase demand for assessment and recognition of 
competencies gained outside formal learning settings
Likely to encourage peer support, mentorship and ambassadorial 
programmes

36. Some examples of current,
successful repositories
IRISS Learning Exchange:
• Built on intraLibrary, using their open source SRU
search tool
• Leeds Met and others are adapting for their own
use
• Social work education across Scotland (HE, now
WBL/CPD and FE also)
• Started closed to members only, now completely
open
http://www.iriss.org.uk/openlx/

37. Some examples of current,
successful repositories
EdShare (Southhampton)
• Built on ePrints: first formal attempt to make
ePrints a learning materials repository
• All subjects at Southampton Uni, open
• Worked closely from the start with academics
http://www.edshare.soton.ac.uk/
New article out yesterday on Ariadne: Morris, 2009

38. Some examples of current,
successful repositories
CURVE (Coventry University)
• Won an IMS Learning Impact award this year!
• Built on Equella to interoperate with their VLE
Oxford Brookes University
• Also building on Equella
• Track down Jan Haines here for more info!
Staffordshire University
• Consortium with local institutions
• Built on Hive: bulk migration of materials out of VLE
Newcastle University Medical School
• Institutional and discipline-based
• Built on intraLibrary, integrated with WebCT
Keele University
• Institutional: CLA materials and t&l materials in one repository
• Will use for specific material collections, e.g. Architectural images
• Built on intraLibrary, integrated with WebCT
• Really cool direct deposit tool on academics’ desktops (utilising SWORD)

39. Some examples of current,
successful repositories
Your chance to share about your work...

40. References
Casey, J., Proven, J., Dripps, D. (2007) Managing IPR in Digital Learning Materials: A Development
Pack for Institutional Repositories. JISC. Available: http://trustdr.ulster.ac.uk/outputs.php
Charlesworth, A. et al (2007) Sharing eLearning Content: A Synthesis and Commentary. JISC.
Available: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/46/1/selc-final-report-3.2.pdf
Margaryan, A. (2006) CD-LOR Deliverable 7: Report on Personal Resource Management
Strategies. JISC. Available: http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/cd-
lor/CDLORdeliverable7_PRMSreport.pdf
Margaryan, A., Milligan, C. And Douglas, P. (2007) CD-LOR Deliverable 9: Structured Guidelines for
Setting up Learning Object Repositories. JISC. Available: http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/cd-
lor/documents/CD-LOR_Structured_Guidelines_v1p0_000.pdf
McGill, L ., Currier, S., Duncan, C. , Douglas, P. (2008) Good Intentions: Improving the Evidence
Base in Support of Sharing Learning Materials. JISC. Available: http://ie-
repository.jisc.ac.uk/265/
Morris, D. (2009) Encouraging More Open Educational Resources with Southampton’s EdShare in
Ariadne, Issue 59
Available: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue59/morris/
Other Resources
Sarah Currier Consultancy http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
JISC CETIS Repositories Domain http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/domain/metadata
JISC CETIS Repositories & Metadata list http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CETIS-METADATA
Special thanks to Lou McGill and Charles Duncan for “Good Intentions” slides:
http://www.loumcgill.co.uk/ and http://www.intrallect.com/