Ntu share project final report

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
JISC Final Report
Project Information
Project Identifier To be completed by JISC
Project Title NTU SHARE (Supporting Harnessing and Advancing Repository
Enhancement
Project Hashtag #ntushare
Start Date March 2009 End Date March 2011
Lead Institution Nottingham Trent University
Project Director Nigel Hasting PVC Academic
Project Manager Vicki McGarvey
Contact email vicki.mcgarvey@ntu.ac.uk
Partner Institutions Desire2Learn
Project Web URL www.ntushare.org
Programme Name Inf11-sue
Programme Manager Balviar Notay
Document Information
Author(s) Vicki McGarvey
Project Role(s) Project Manager
Date June 2011 Filename
URL www.ntushare.org
Access This report is for general dissemination
Page 1 of 21
Document title: JISC Final Report Template
Last updated : Feb 2011 - v11.0

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Table of Contents
1
1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................................3
2 PROJECT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................3
3 MAIN BODY OF REPORT ............................................................................................................................3
IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................................8
4 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 19
5 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................20
6 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE...............................................................................................................21
7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. 21
8 APPENDICES (OPTIONAL)..........................................................................................................................21
PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ATTACHED ...................................................................................21
21
Last updated : Feb 2011 – v11.0
Page 2 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
1 Acknowledgements
Programme: inf11-SUE
Programme Manager: Balviar Notay
Partners: Desire2Learn (D2L) – Yvonne Monterrroso, Technical Product Manager and Project
Technical Lead; Ian Mathers, Programme Manager for LOR and ePortfolio
NTU Project Team: Anna Armstrong, Project Officer; Helen Adey, Evaluation Lead; Marek Oledzki,
Communication Lead; Trevor Pull IT and Technical Support; Emma Tanner, Administrative Support;
Dr Jon Tepper, Requirements Analysis Lead
NTU Development and Implementation Core Team: Anna Armstrong; Jon Fletcher; Barry Gregory;
Trevor Pull; Lisa Warburton
NTU Colleagues from across NTU who were member of the wider Development and Implementation
Angela Trikic Project Lead until October 2010
Nigel Hastings PVC Academic and Nottingham Trent University’s Elearning Working Group
2 Project Summary
The SHARE Project, in partnership with Desire2Learn, the vendors of the University’s Virtual Learning
Environment has extended repository use at Nottingham Trent University by integration within
learning and teaching. With the assistance of JISC funding, Nottingham Trent University (NTU) had
begun to develop a repository infrastructure by implementing an Institutional Repository (IREP), which
has eased access and discovery of scholarly and related work. SHARE has enhanced this repository
infrastructure by supporting the sharing and reuse of learning and teaching resources via a group of
learning repositories implemented within its VLE.
The project has facilitated the development and implementation, within a sustainable support
framework, of nine School repositories, one for each School, a University-wide learning repository and
the integration of JorumOpen and Merlot within its learning repository. Via a simplified workflow and
metadata schema, most staff at NTU can share and reuse learning resources within the context of
their School or the, wider University. In addition, the project has increased access to learning
resources from outside of the University via JorumOpen and Merlot and the successful
implementation of these has paved the way for future external repository implementations.
Furthermore, the project has encouraged NTU to take a strategic approach with respect to the issues
associated with sharing and reusing learning and teaching materials. This is reflected in the recent
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy which includes an action to “aid sharing of learning
and teaching resources by enhancing the University’s online repository provision” and the change in
the University’s “Copyright in Educational Resources Policy” which authorises staff to attach a
“Creative Commons License – Attribution – Non-commercial – Share Alike” license to their work. Both
of these major developments have happened during the lifetime of the project. These changes,
together with the successful investigative technical activities, has meant that work can now begin on
developing a policy for making learning resources open within the learning repositories, thus
facilitating the start of a culture of open educational resources at the University.
3 Main Body of Report
3.1 Project Outputs and Outcomes
Page 3 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
All the major documents produced by the project can be found on the SHARE web site
http://www.ntushare.org/project-documents/
 Detailed project brief
 List of roles, responsibilities and permissions;
 A set of use cases;
 An agreed metadata application profile with minimum set of attributes;
 A set of criteria and processes for selection and evaluation of learning objects
 Logical models of NTU LOR
 Technical Report
 Learning Repository Overview
 Guide to OER
 Creative Commons
 Webinar Powerpoints
 National Workshop
 Conferences
3.2 How did you go about achieving your outputs / outcomes?
Project Aims and Objectives
The project informed by current research within the sector intended to contribute to the e-Framework
with project outputs relating to technical infrastructure and storage requirements as well as the policy
and business processes that would enable deployment and transferability.
In addition, the project’s main goal was to develop and implement models of use and processes that
embed the creation, sharing and management of learning resources in NTU’s Learning Repository 1
within its VLE and via the Learning and Teaching Collection in IRep within academic practice at NTU
by:
 Establishing processes and workflows that managed opportunities for content creation and
learning and teaching resource sharing;
 Establishing workflows within the University for the inclusion and subsequent management of
materials within the repository;
 Developing strategies to maximise the effective use of learning and teaching resources
currently locked up in personal storage devices, module locations on the VLE, and other less
reliable media;
 Achieving measurable increase in deposit rate to and usage of the Learning Repository and
IREP;
 Develop interfaces between the Learning Repository and external repositories e.g. JORUM
and IRep and share outcomes of work undertaken.
However, the interface between the IREP and the Learning Repository was not developed during the
lifecycle of the project and the above goal was only achieved for the Learning Repository, because of
the following:
 IREP is an open access archive, the project decided in consultation with the NTU community
that it wanted to make its learning resources externally available as Open Educational
Resources and the current purpose of IREP precluded this;
1
NTU Learning Repository is a collective noun for the 9 School Learning Repository and 1 NTU-wide
learning repository integrated within its VLE Desire2Learn that were implemented within learning and
teaching
Page 4 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
 As Url’s can be made open in D2L’s learning repository, these can then be harvested and
shared via web sites and repositories (JorumOpen) and the project in consultation with NTU
community decided this was a more appropriate way to share learning resources, however, in
order to implement this the Elearning Working Group (the project’s steering group) has
recommended the development of a formalised process, which is being worked on at the
moment
Methodology
The twin objectives of achieving the cultural change in learning and teaching practice and the
technology implementation of the Learning Repository calls for a mixed skill set which was reflected in
the project team and the composition of the workpackage groups.
Project Management
The following diagram illustrates the project management framework:
The identified workpackages and support from within the NTU community, which included teaching
and support staff, was influenced by the University’s successful VLE implementation project, which
had very similar characteristics with respect to technical implementation and learning and teaching
engagement. The composition of the workpackage groups reflected the range of skills required to
meet the various outcomes and illustrated the collaborative approach adopted by the project with
respect to decision-making. For example, the Development and Implementation Workpackage, the
largest workpackage had a core group, which comprised of eLearning Developers, librarians and
training staff. This group was involved in most of the hands on work with respect to setting up the
learning repositories, testing, piloting and providing training and support. The core group was
supported by a larger group, which comprised teaching and support staff who consulted on modelling,
workflows, support and the development of best practice case studies.
With respect to maintaining good relations with our partners Desire2Learn, colleagues at D2L were
conferenced into project team meetings and occasional workpackage meetings if it was thought that
their knowledge could contribute to the outputs. These activities were sometimes supported by a live
webcast if the meeting related to the management of a technical issue.
Page 5 of 21
eLearning Working
Group
Project Manager
Project team
Requirements
Analysis WP
Dev &
Implementation
WP
Evaluation
WP
Technology
WP
Communications
WP
Project Lead
Project Officer

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Communication
Project documentation was disseminated via the project web site, this included the Project Plan and
all of the workpackage plans, the web site also linked to the project WIKI workspace. Colleagues at
NTU and beyond were kept up-to-date via a regular blog, complimented via a Google site. Actions
registers were kept for all Workpackage and project meetings. In addition, there was a monthly
communication to the NTU community via a SHARE Newsletter, which included illustrations of best
practice and publishing statistics.
Data Capture
With respect to capturing data on the project, qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in the
project evaluation, which involved a focus group supported by a survey. The number of School
resources was reported monthly via the Learning and Teaching Coordinators. Feedback on training
sessions was acquired via a questionnaire.
Testing
The VLE has three instances all of which have the Learning Repository tool where testing and
implemenation activities took place:
 Test: this allows the testing of proof of concept activities
 Development: this is a mirror of the production system and is used for healthchecking,
troubleshooting and implementation of agreed activities tested on Test
 Production: this is the live system
Standards
The project adopted the following standards:
 Metadata: IEEE Lom – with Dublin Core walkthroughs
 Harvesting: OAI-PMH
 IPR: Nottingham Trent University; Creative Commons
Specific Issues
The following had an impact on the methodology:
 Processes that require a change in policy which needs ratification by groups outside of the
project
o The “Copyright in Education Resources Policy” to enable staff to license their content
as Creative Commons 2.1 - this had to be ratified by Academic Standards and Quality
Committee (ASQC)
o Process for making learning resource open - this needs to be agreed upon by
Elearning Working Group which is the project steering group, which will then need a
supporting policy which will have to be ratified by Academic Standards and Quality
Committee
 University reorganisation, which resulted in the project management moving from the
Educational Development Unit (which was split three ways between Information Systems,
Centre for Professional Learning and Development and the Centre for Academic Standards
and Quatity) in Libraries and Learning Resources to Centre for Academic Development and
Quality, this led to a change in:
o Personnel
o Support management
Page 6 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
o Budget management
o Idenitified roles in the take down policy
o Sustainability plan
Development
Requirements Gathering
Before setting up the learning repositories a group was established to develop a specification which
outlined the requirements for implementing the repositories. This was a mixed-skills group which was
led the Learning and Teaching Coordinator for Science and Technology (Jon Tepper) and included a
librarian, the University Copyright Advisor, an eLearning Developer, Training Officer and the Project
Manager. The group created specification documents for Learning Repository (LR) tool on:
User Access Permissions: details the requirements of user access to the LR and describes
the different user types and the functions they will need to perform
Functionality: defines the expected behaviour of the LR system as it responds to the
demands made by each of the recognised system users. It defines the recognised LR system
users, their expectations and captures the system's behavioural requirements by detailing
scenario-driven threads through a set of functional requirements expressed in the form of
system use cases and data flow diagrams (where applicable).
Modelling: describes how the LR tool will be configured and structured for use at Nottingham
Trent University (NTU) it formally defines the requirements for the LR in a way that clearly
maps onto the University’s organisational structure and anticipated processes.
Metadata: This describes the metadata scheme, views and templates that will be used within
the LR and is a scaled down version of Learning Object Metadata
Learning Repository Configuration
The above specifications influenced the modelling of the learning repositories (LRs), which included
permission sets for individual roles, the number of LRs needed, workflows and the metadata
schemas. The requirements gathering exercise resulted in the following LR configuration:
Number of LRs: Each school has an LR and there is a university wide NTU LR - only staff
can, retrieves, publish, share and reuse digital resources from these LRs.
Access to the LR: Access to the LRs is via the courses within in NTU’s VLE (Desire2Learn).
To publish to and retrieve resources from a school LR the course has to sit within that school.
For example, to publish to the School of Social Sciences LR the course has to sit within the
School of Social Sciences. Staff can publish to the NTU LR from any course.
LR Permissions: Only staff not students can publish, share and reuse learning resources
within NTU’s LRs. Staff have the following permissions, which articulate into a very simple
workflow that requires no intermediary, e.g. library services for publishing and retrieving
resources:
 Publish learning resources from their courses to their School and NTU LRs
 Search the School and NTU LRs
 Retrieve learning resources from the School and NTU’s LRs
 Create dynamic and locked links to learning resources within the School and NTU’s
Learning Repositories
 Edit and delete their own learning resources within the School and NTU LRs
 View reports on the usage of their learning resources within the School and NTU
Page 7 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
 View published learning resources within School and NTU LRs
 View information about a learning resources within the School and NTU LRs
including metadata and the files
 Overwrite their learning resources with the School and NTU LRs
 Add a review to a learning resource within the School and NTU LRs
 Edit the metadata of their learning resources within the School and NTU LR
Overall management of the learning resources: Each school has a School Learning
Repository Coordinator who is responsible for managing learning resources, which reside in
the School Learning Repository. In addition to the staff permissions the School Learning
Repository Co-ordinator has permission to:
 Manage all resources in the School Learning Repository, which includes editing and
deleting a resource
 Overwrite any of the learning resources within the School Learning Repository
 Manage reviews within the School LR: which includes hide or show comments
 See all hidden resources that are hidden by the author within the School Learning
Repository
This role can be assigned to any existing role within the VLE. For example, the School VLE
Co-ordinator, Programme Lead, School Admin etc. but the permissions are set at a School
level, so for example if these extra permissions are given to the Programme Lead in the
School of Science Technology the permissions will not be carried over to the Programme
Lead role within other Schools.
Metadata: Staff complete a metadata template as part of the publishing. Metadata can, also,
be edited once a learning resource has been published. Desire2Learn has three metadata
options, IEEE LOM, Dublin Core, Gem and CanCore. For our purposes we opted for scaled
down version of LOM. Staff are expected to complete the following when publishing.
• Title (mandatory)
• Description (mandatory)
• Keywords
• Author (mandatory)
• Learning Resource Educational Type
• Copyright Details
Access to Additional Repositories
In addition to the configuration of the School and NTU learning repositories, an integration of Merlot
(Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching) http://www.merlot.org was
switched on and harvesting records from JorumOpen was enabled. This has increased number of
learning resources that staff can search, retrieve and reuse via the learning repository interface.
Implementation
Quality Assurance, Copyright and Accessibility
The project decided to address the issues of quality assurance, copyright and accessibility from an
institutional perspective. Rather than creating separate guides for this staff were encouraged to look
at the existing guidance on quality assurance, copyright and accessibility that NTU has produced in
the context of developing online resources:
Quality Assurance: With respect to quality of assurance of the pedagogic aspects of
learning resources published to the School and NTU Learning Repositories (LRs), as with the
quality assurance of content published to the courses this lies with schools and is
implemented via schools’ own internal processes.
Page 8 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Copyright: The University has a “Copyright Checklist that staff should refer to when
publishing and additional support is provided by subject librarians.
Accessibility: With respect to the learning repositories the main considerations relating to
accessibility are with the creation of the online resources and the repurposing of any
resources that are retrieved from the LRs. NTU provides guidance on how to create
accessible learning resources in its “Accessibility Checklist for Learning Resources”.
Early Adopters
The learning repositories (LRs) went live in October 2009. Some initial testing was done on our
Development and Testing servers to check the modelling, it was then decided to make the
repositories available to all staff rather than testing with a cohort, as the project had adopted a
simplified publishing and retrieval workflow. Piloting was therefore by early adopters, from within the
NTU service and academic community, who were members of the project’s Development and
Implementation Group. The first main users of the LRs were the School of Arts and Humanities, which
used the School LR to share generic subject resources and Libraries and Learning Resources, which
used the NTU LR to share information literacy resources.
The early adopters were helpful in providing recommendations for:
Interface and terminology changes: For example, the term the learning object was dropped
because staff found this confusing, so the repositories became known as Learning
Repositories as opposed to Learning Object Repositories and in supporting documentation
learning resource replaced learning object in references to publishing and reuse.
Identify technical issues: These were referred back to Desire2Learn, who often responded
with developing hot fixes.
Metadata amendments: The project began with quite a complex metadata scheme,
however, discussions with respect to the purpose of metadata and what data was required, by
staff within NTU, this was refined.
Training and Support
The project adopted a mixed mode approach to training and support. A two-part workshop was
designed. The first part provided an introduction to the learning repositories and sharing learning
resources within NTU the second part was devoted to raising their awareness of OER. This workshop
was delivered across all three campuses to a mixed discipline audience and within schools. To
supplement the workshop a series of webinars was offered, towards the end of the project, on
providing introductions to Creative Commons, OER and NTU’s Learning Repositories using Live
Meetings.
Support with respect to technical issues was provided by a small group of project members, who
picked up queries relating to the LRs that were filtered by the eLearning Helpdesk. In addition, the
project created an online course within the VLE that provided LR training materials, copyright
guidance, guidance on OER and links to additional resources. It was decided to create short guides
on how to publish and retrieve learning resources to LRs as there had been comments in the past that
the VLE guides were a little lengthy, it was also observed that Jorum had taken this approach. All the
in-house developed material was published to the NTU-LR as well.
Embedding and Engaging
It has already been mentioned, that the project took a collaborative approach to the development and
implementation of the learning repositories, engaging academic staff and professional service staff in
the formation of policies and processes. At the beginning of the project we held a Buzz Lunch to
introduce staff to the LRs and the workflows, which was attended by a range of staff from across the
Page 9 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
University and was well received. Colleagues were, also, kept up-to-date via the blog, the newsletter,
wiki and Google site. Illustrations of best practice with respect to repository use were captured in a LR
leaflet that we produced videos within in our LRs and Sharing course and disseminated in workshops.
In addition, the project used some of its funding to incentivise school and professional service
engagement in sharing learning. In return for the funding schools and services had to evidence:
 Opportunities and activities for sharing learning resources with colleagues have been
adequately addressed in the School Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy Action
Plan or Service Operational Plan
 Staff have a knowledge and understanding of NTU’s Learning Repositories: It is expected that
School/Service will host a workshop/s on NTU’s Learning Repositories.
 The start of an implementation of School/Service project/s that use NTU’s learning
repositories: A suggestion is 2/3 resource management projects, for example the sharing of
generic content (e.g. study skills, student support, assessment criteria, information literacy
etc.), across a range of learning rooms. Alternatively, 1 large project evidencing collaborative
sharing of module learning resources across a range of programmes (e.g. third year project,
ethics, research methods, project management etc.).
 Illustrations of School/Service learning repository use have been disseminated within the
School, the NTU Community and beyond: The project will help to capture these and details of
the project/s will be in the final report.
 The use of NTU’s learning repositories has been integrated within School/Service learning
technology/e-learning developments: The learning repositories should not be treated
separately to other e-tools used within the School/Service, so for, example, if the
School/Service has an e-learning champion/friend or any other method of support within the
School the learning repositories should be integrated within the support already provided.
The following are statements from the schools and services that chose to be involved illustrating how
they would evidence this:
 Carry out research into examples of School usage of OER
 Populate courses with OER
 Build a community of evaluators of extant OER products
 Encourage interventions that are accessible for different students
 Create & share further learning development materials, for lecturers to adapt & for students to
use
 Dissemination of learning and teaching practice via sharing resources
 Champion and raise awareness in School groups e.g. Blended Learning Groups; Learning
and Teaching Groups; to Senior Staff
 Consider opportunities to incorporate material from the global commons into the curriculum
 Create a task group to develop sharing practice
3.3 What did you learn?
Promotion of Institutional Sharing is a Catalyst for Institutional Engagement in OER
It is possible that the work of the SHARE project with respect to learning resource sharing and
awareness raising of OER has encouraged the University to think about the importance of accessing
OER in context of curriculum re-design. For example, University’s Learning and Teaching
Enhancement Strategy 2010-2014 states:
Our students can benefit significantly from the multiple perspectives offered by
increasing access to open educational resources, or what might be termed
participation in the global knowledge commons. They might be encouraged in taking
up these opportunities by the further integration into the curriculum of open
Page 10 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
educational resources, ranging from lectures shared by the world's leading
universities, to the use of social networking to study grassroots arts movements. In
this way, we can employ the global commons to further develop international
perspectives in our curriculum and enrich learning and teaching. this way, we can
employ the global commons to further develop international perspectives in our
curriculum and enrich learning and teaching.
(Objective 1: Continue to create a forward-looking and inspiring curriculum)
In addition, the change in the “Copyright in Educational Resources Policy” which authorises staff to
attach “Creative Commons License to work – Attribution – Non-commercial – Share Alike” license to
their work was brought about by the work of SHARE project’s policy and business processes sub-
group.
Learning Technology Innovators are Important in Developing and Encouraging Best Practice
NTU’s current VLE was only implemented in 2008 and for some staff familiarising themselves with
basic use of the tools within the VLE has been a steep learning curve. NTU colleagues that were
involved in development and implementation activities had been involved in the implementation of the
VLE and were more comfortable with the environment, and were willing to experiment. Despite,
incentivising staff to use the learning repositories, as mentioned above, it has been the early adopters
who have helped the project to build up illustrations of best practice.
Use a Range of Strategies to Engage People
Ensure Partners are Included and/or Involved in Activities
Our main partner was Desire2Learn in Canada; to ensure they were involved in activities we used
webinar software to demonstrate technical issues and conference calls for general meetings. The
RSS feeds on strategies listed above ensured that colleagues in Canada were regularly updated with
respect to project outputs.
Page 11 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Collaborate with Colleagues on Major Activities:
Have a Core Group that Supports Most Project Activities
At times, the delivery of project outputs was impacted by staff changes and service reorganisations.
However, a core group (Development and Implementation Core Group), which was a committed
resource, that included the project manager and the project officer ensured sustainability of the
activities of this group throughout the project.
Evaluation
The project held a focus group and questionnaire to get early adopters feedback on publishing and
sharing practice with respect to using the learning repositories and other methods.
Focus Group Feedback
Activity Area Comments
Resources published to
the Learning
Repository
 30-40 academic by Libraries and Learning Resources which the Law
School had used in their teaching
 One person had used the School Learning Repository to organise
and store his own resources.
Usability and
Publishing
 Generally people in the group found publishing relatively
straightforward
 Although the learning repository can theoretically accommodate files
of any size, this is limited in practice by what the network can cope
with: uploads of very large files time out before they can complete
 It was thought that staff would like drag’n’drop functionality which
would be especially helpful for organising learning room content
generally, as well as for publishing to/retrieving from the learning
repository
 It can be time consuming to publish multiple topics to the learning
Page 12 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
repository at the same time as it not possible to publish multiple
topics
 There is the danger that resources could be published without
metadata, as the ‘Add Metadata’ button can be easily missed.
 Applying a ‘Metadata Template’ (to autopopulate many of the
standard fields) will make the process much less onerous for staff
which means that staff are more inclined to complete metadata rather
than skipping this step.
 When overwriting a resource there is the danger that a wrong ‘old’
item can be overwritten as the ‘search’ field retains the name of the
last object that was searched for, rather than appearing blank
Staff Engagement  “Vanity publishing”, where the increased in visibility may becomes a
spur for people to make their content available (FlickR, YouTube
etc.). However, this perhaps only works if there is an indicator of
popularity (‘times visited’, ratings etc.).
 IPR, it was felt that another barrier to use could be a lack of clarity
around what people can and cannot do with resources they find.
Partly, this might be to do with the lack of clarity in language around
IP issues, partly unfamiliarity with ideas like Creative Commons.
Support  Staff use of the VLE general (inc. ePortfolio), requires a lot of support
and development for people to feel comfortable with the technology
and the processes. Some of this is to do with the unfamiliarity of the
language involved, some to do with unfamiliar concepts (publishing,
retrieving, artefacts, permissions etc.).
Resource Discovery  Searching and retrieving from repositories in general is labour-
intensive and ultimately frustrating. For example, resources are found
which later turn out not to be usable (permissions issues, Terms and
Conditions forbid certain types of use etc.). This results in a lot of
misdirection and wasted effort. Better, in an ideal world, if users were
able to refine searches, showing only resources that are both suitable
(the content is appropriate) and usable (the user can retrieve and
reuse) There is a general feeling that making content available in
NOW makes people feel more vulnerable, and therefore, more risk-
averse (IP etc.) than presenting in-class. This was felt to apply even
more to LR, in which content is more ‘visible’.
Usability and Retrieving
from the Learning
Repository
 The links to in the VLE to the Learning Repositories are
inconspicuous, and staff would only know of Learning Repositories
existence if they were deliberately steered towards it.
Strategic Approaches
to Sharing Learning
Resources
 Schools have different practices re. Sharing digital resources.
Sometimes this means of sharing deliberately mirrors real workplace
practices (e.g. Art & Design, Law), for instance via shared drives.
This is more applicable to sharing with students than sharing strictly
between staff members.
 Most schools have not yet had a discussion about ways to reduce
duplication through sharing. Much of this duplication of content could
be weeded out by this kind of deliberate consideration, either
retrospectively or at the design stage. The same approach could be
applied across the university, on the basis that there might be
numerous unanticipated ‘overlaps’ from one department to the next
e.g. Property Law and Equine Sports Science).
 Learning repository based sharing is still ‘embryonic’ within Social
Sciences. However, there is widespread support for the principle that
‘shared’ should be the default position. In other words, content should
be shared unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
Page 13 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Survey Feedback
Activity Area Respondent Comments
Publishing resources to the
65% worked out how to publish
for themselves 35% needed
help with how to publish
94% added Metadata to
resources 6% did not
Support with publishing
 Process was reasonably straightforward. Suspect some
colleague will need a basic guide. Everything ran smoothly
apart from largest file sizes
 I’ve not been very successful personally or in terms of
encouraging colleagues
 It was reasonably straightforward
 I had a 1 hour session which took me through the steps
required to publish to the repository. I was then able to
submit a range of resources
 I used an online guide to ensure I knew what I was doing
 The instructions were to do with the metadata that we should
use. As a team, we will be publishing resources to the LR,
and need to use consistent metadata.
Experience of publishing
 I found it easy process
 Overall a positive experience. Encouraged me to be more
reflective in my practice.
 Quite straightforward once told; easy to do with a guide/some
simple on-screen advice.
 Sometimes its not clear if its taken other objects into the
repository as well as the published resource
 The process is incredibly straightforward and
comprehensive. Colleagues get hung up about metadata -
I'm not sure why - unless of course I'm missing something
 I had a lot of resources to upload, and it was quite frustrating
not to be able to upload them in bulk
 Like all things, the more you do it, the easier it is and the
more confident you get in doing it. Having said that, it's not
difficult to do.
 It was difficult to get your head around the process of
updating the materials you had published and the best way
to do this without creating duplicates me also found that it
was easy to miss the metadata icon.
Metadata
 Meta data is very valuable in that it will help you manage and
retrieve items from the repository. A labelling standard
should be used in my opinion to make it as useful as
possible.
 I'm quite used to adding metadata; others might well require
instructions (or at least a reason why they might need to use
this field!). Many might well need coaxing, given the optional
nature.
 Not sure what all the fuss is about.
 I never find it easy to write the description of the work - I
usually end up going back to the metadata to edit it.
 It can take a while to do this if you are adding lots resources
it would be good to be able to set up a template
Page 14 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Finding and using resources
NTU’s Learning Repositories:
88% had searched or browsed
the repositories 22% had not
100% worked this out for
themselves without instructions
57% found something useful
43% did not
78% used the resource(s) as is
22% adapted the resource(s)
68% looked at the resource(s)
for inspiration/ideas
JorumOpen via the Learning
Repository
65% had searched or browsed
JorumOpen 35% had not, 91%
worked it out for themselves 9%
needed help, 64% found
something useful 6% did not,
57% used the resource(s) as is,
57% used the resource(s) for
ideas/inspiration nobody
repurposed the resource(s)
MERLOT via the Learning
Repository
47% had searched for
resource(s) 53% had not, 88%
needed help 12% worked out for
themselves, 63% found
something useful 37% did not,
80% used resource(s) as is 20%
adapted resource for own
purpose 40% looked at the
resource(s) for inspiration/ideas
Searching for resources
 To be honest it was a while ago and there was very little of
interest or use at that time
 Looking for material I teach
 Don't know how
 Encouraging to see that more content is being added.
Support
 Fairly straightforward
 I find the search very limited
 The search doesn't always work well as I used it to try and
find my own resources and I needed to be quite precise
Using the resource(s)
 Saw some resources that I can use in the future but need to
plan for their future use to put them in overall context of the
modules.
Overall experience of using NTU’s Learning Repositories
 Good tool easy to navigate
 Overall a positive experience. Expect to make more use of it
in the future. Expect to contribute more material to it in the
future. May require staff to amend their normal way of
working.
 A big negative for our School was that this could not take
'assessment' so the repository was not able to fulfil the
functions / things we wanted to use it for (I understand that
the new version can do this and so its potential usefulness to
JorumOpen Comments
 I used the online help
 Finding a resource was the easy part. Working out how to get
it from Jorum and into NOW was difficult as the method
varies according to the resource.
MERLOT Comments
 Some of the resources are not as relevant as they are
American
 Good streamlined between merlot and NOW
Strategy
88% said that resources were
Digital Resources are shared in Schools via:
1. E-mail
2. Shared drive
Page 15 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
being shared within their School
12% said that they did not know
if they were
83% had shared resources with
colleagues 17% had not
3. NTU Learning Repositories
4. Publishing external location e.g. YouTube
5. Other areas: SharePoint; VLE in general; Google Docs;
Respondents had shared resources via:
1. NTU’s Learning Repositories
2. Email
3. Shared drive
4. Published to external location e.g. YouTube, Slideshare
5. Other: VLE in general; Google docs; Dropbox; SharePoint
Change Practice
With respect to what
respondent wanted Learning
Repositories (NTU and other)
to do for them
94% access to materials as
sources of ideas and inspiration
88% allow to adapt materials I
find
88% allow store and manage
own materials
63% enable them to clearly
identify myself as the creator of
my own content
With respect to what would
discourage use of
repositories
87% Poor usability /
searchability of available
repositories
53% People misusing my
material, e.g. adapting it
inappropriately
47% People appropriating my
material without
acknowledgement
Ways in which respondents had used NTU’s Learning
Repositories
 Experimentation only
 To find content to imitate
 Have uploaded learning objects to the LOR. Have searched
for objects in LOR. Intend to begin integrating use of LOR
into modules from 2011/12
 As per previous comments - we want to share on line
assessments etc but until now the repository could not
accommodate this
 Publishing and retrieving generic resources used in the
school
 As a convenience tool, allowing me to bundle up and
subsequently retrieve regularly-used material time after time
 Placed materials to test the system and for others to freely
access
 I have created resources for use in multiple learning rooms
 Publishing and retrieving mainly
 Quick check to see what other people have made available;
as a safe storage place for my materials that are of general
use
 Mainly how the same resources are used within a number of
learning rooms. It makes it a lot easier to update
 Primarily for getting ideas but I have used some resources
 To upload resources
Discouragers to repository use
 If there are other more easily accessible systems available
 Happy for people to use materials I produce but seek
acknowledgement of my authorship. Pretty relaxed about
how things may be used; perhaps more relaxed than my
institution
 Resources NOT being used or viewed
 I would still use the repositories if my resources were mis-
used, but would probably try to make them difficult enough
that they would use my resources instead of mis-using them
 Nothing - we need to get our heads round sharing resources
- working smarter, adapting the work of others - more
effective
Page 16 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
3.4 Immediate Impact
Institutional Impact
Strategic acknowledgement of the importance
of sharing learning resources
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy
2010-2014 Actions:
 1.7 Employ the online knowledge
commons to further develop international
perspectives in the curriculum and enrich
learning and teaching
 2.7 Aid sharing of learning and teaching
resources by enhancing the University’s
online repository provision
“Copyright in Educational Resources Policy”
changed giving authorisation to staff to attach
“Creative Commons License to work – Attribution
– Non-commercial – Share Alike” license to their
work
Integration of learning repository training,
support & Enhancement in existing Services
 Information Systems – administrative
support
 Centre for Professional Learning and
Development
 Awareness of OER – Libraries and
Learning Resources
 Learning Repository Enhancements –
Technology Enhancement Learning and
Teaching Community
Engagement in sharing practice Services:
 Information literacy resources
 Academic writing guides
Schools
 Programme and module handbook
information
 Video how to guides: Delicious,
YouTube,
 Activity templates
 Audio for foreign language teaching
 Sharing of external learning resources
Page 17 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Statistics Increase in individuals items published
to the School and NTU LRs over the last academic
year:
Oct-10 – No of
items Learning Repository
1900 All Schools
757 NTU
Jun-11 – No of
items Learning Repository
2894 All Schools
3491 NTU
Highest Publishing Schools
Oct-10 1. Arts & Humanities
2. Animal & Rural
3. Science & Technology
Jun-10 1. Arts & Humanities
2. Animal & Rural
3. Science & Technology
Increase in learning resources available Increased access to OER
 Integration of MERLOT
 Harvesting from JorumOpen
Benefits to the Wider Community
Engagement in the OER Community  Guide to Creative Commons
 Presentations at OER 10 and 11
Dissemination of best practice usage of
learning repositories and sharing learning
resources together with strategic engagement
 SHARE National Workshop
 ALT-C 2010
 JIF 2010
 Desire2Learn Fusion Conference &
receipt of the Desire2collaborate award in
acknowledgement of work
 Desire2Learning Learning Repository
Usergroup
 Web site www.ntushare.org Twitter -
#ntushare
3.5 Future Impact
Area Activities Tracking
Strategically Resource sharing activities in
School action and operational
service plans
Quality school reporting
Learning and teaching practice Openness in online design and
identification generic modules
appropriate for sharing
resources
Integration of new processes
Resource Discovery Dissemination of OER for
specific subjects
Integration is staff and student
development activities
Development of OER Development of a creative
environment to facilitate the
creation of OER
Implementation of a repository
for OER facilitated by a policy
Page 18 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Engagement in sharing
resources
Further development of best
practice with respect to sharing
Increase in publishing of learning
resources to School and NTU
learning repositories and
dissemination of best practices
models via learning and teaching
groups and activities
4 Conclusions
Institutional Engagement in Resource Sharing
Stage Completion Conclusions
Stage 1
Introduction: Introduction to
repositories & sharing resources to
the NTU community
70%  The project through its collaborative activities
attempted to engage all Schools and Services but it
is inevitable that some are more engaged than
others, which is often dependent on the engagement
in technology enhanced learning in general
 As the learning repositories were integrated within
the VLE the workflow for publishing and retrieving is
relatively simple, however some staff are still
familiarising themselves with basic tools within the
VLE
Stage 2 Familiarisation
Development of training, support &
good practice
70 %  The project developed guides on all aspects of the
learning repository and published these to the
learning repository and training is available via the
Centre for Professional Learning and Development
however the conclusions with respect to staff
engagement on technology enhanced learning
mentioned in Stage 1 impacts on the take-up by staff
of this support
 The project collated good practice models but the
continuation of this is dependent identification by
Schools and Services and at the most common use
of the learning repositories is for resource
management rather than the sharing of learning and
teaching
Stage 3 Embedding
Identification of support for
learning resource sharing within
school/service strategic
development
60%  The University has strategically identified the
importance of sharing learning resource in its
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy and
the SHARE incentive project facilitated Schools and
Services identifying activities that engage with this,
however, Schools are still developing their action
plans and as of yet there is no clear identification of
support within Schools and Services outside of the
central support currently provided by the University
Stage 4 Integration
Integration of sharing within
curriculum development
30%  SHARE project identified central support and
activities for this via Libraries and Learning
Resources, Centre Professional Development and
the eLearning Development Team in the Centre for
Academic Development and Quality and Schools
and Services identified the need for this in their
feedback on the incentive projects
 Cultural change activities are planned but have yet
to be implemented
Page 19 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Stage 5 Sharing beyond:
Colleagues sharing with rest of the
university community & beyond
20%  Some colleagues are sharing resources beyond
using tools in the cloud e.g. YouTube, Slideshare
etc. and the Copyright in Educational Resources
Policy has authorised staff to share resources using
a Creative Commons license
 Staff still need to be encouraged to engage with
resource sharing institutionally
Feedback on publishing and sharing resources (evaluation)
Project Management
Process Conclusion
Project Management  Have a small core group that works on most of the project
activities to enable continuity
 Project manager and officer are useful personnel to have
on the project, manager can oversee the whole process
and the officer can manage day-to-day activities
 If there are any personnel changes during the project
make sure you give good time for a handover which
includes a checklist of activities
Requirements Gathering  If implementing a system it cannot be underestimated the
importance of this process and it will help with
configuration of the system and will identify training and
support issues
 Requirements areas that system implementation projects
may be worth considering for a repository:
o Metadata
o Permissions
o Use cases
o Copyright
Technical Requirements  Technical requirements it is best that this is led by an
individual/individuals that have a good knowledge of the
system
Development & Implementation  This was the main part of the project and also required
input from colleagues from across the University, so a
collaborative approach was adopted
Communication  Variety of mechanisms were adopted for different
audiences
5 Recommendations
Recommendation Area Details
General  Involve the wider University community in
development and implementation
activities, in particular workflows, training
& support
 Have core group that is involved in
hands-on work on all project activities
 Choose a variety of mechanisms to
communicate outputs
 If you have a group of innovators engage
them from the outset
Wider community  See general comments above
Page 20 of 21

Project Identifier:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
 When creating your metadata schema be
mindful of who will be publishing the
resource a less complex workflow may
warrant a less complex metadata schema
 When implementing a system the
terminology may need to be changed to
suit the community, decide which
terminology colleagues need to know and
which terminology can be changed e.g.
learning resource instead of learning
object
JISC  More regular catch-ups with Programme
Manager and the other projects within the
programme
 More guidance on what to do if project
staff changes or if you experience a
major reorganisation
 Central location for all the project outputs
 Assistance with identifying
interrelationships with projects in other
programmes and facilitated networking
with respect to these
6 Implications for the future
Implications Details
On the user community  Availability of templates and models for:
o Requirements gathering
o Training documentation
o Metadata
o Repository set-up
Suggested areas for development  Research into learning resource sharing and
digital literacy of staff
 Open approaches to design & reuse of content of
existing content
Long term outputs  See Institutional Impact Above
7 References
<List any references to the work of others you have cited (e.g. articles, reports, studies, standards),
and any explanatory notes. Provide URLs for any materials available on the web.>
8 Appendices (optional)
Project Evaluation Questionnaire Attached
Page 21 of 21

Ntu share project final report

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ntu share project final report (20)

More from Vicki McGarvey (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ntu share project final report