With members of the OTTER team having returned safely from their various conferences, we duly resumed our regular meeting schedule, the purpose of the most recent being to identify metadata requirements for, and quality criteria against which we could assess, the material which we intended to make into OERs.
The metadata requirements were decided upon relatively quickly following Simon’s advice to keep it clear and concise, and having looked at examples already in existence. Establishing the quality criteria was a slightly different story.
After much discussion and some revision of Sahm’s provisional six stage flowchart through which the material should progress, discarding some points, inputting others, determining that we needed a separate and detailed set of quality criteria, Gabi asked us all what lessons we had learnt from our planning meetings so far.
The two things I would highlight are that there is a distinct lack of OER quality assessment criteria which is accessible out there in existing OER literature, and that creating the criteria from scratch was a long old process. What you may perceive as a quality indicator in the first instance might well not stand up under closer scrutiny or attempts at setting benchmark standards. Further input and discussion is required before we can make a final decision.
The process continues…….
Tania
Tags: metadata, quality criteria, Workflows
26 June 2009 at 9:27 am |
Hello Otters! I’m following your blog with interest 🙂 Just wondering if you’d be willing to let us know a bit more about the metadata requirements you’re discussing? As you know JISC and CETIS are not mandating a metadata application profile for this programme and we’re hoping to learn a lot from the projects themselves regarding what metadata is deemed to be useful, appropriate, etc. I’d also be very interested to know if you’ve had any thoughts on the process of how the metadata will be captured or created? Look forward to hearing lots more about Otter 🙂
29 June 2009 at 1:21 pm |
Hi Lorna. Yes, we’ve been having much discussion about metadata. Sahm has been focusing on the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative as a likely source. I like the idea of keeping things as simple as possible. Not sure if any of the other projects have any ideas? Very much a work in progress at this stage!