Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

4th meeting - 15 May 2014 @ 11.00 CEST

5th meeting - 15 May 2014 @ 11.00 CEST

Next coming:

5th 6th meeting - TBC (possibly face to face)

Anchor
5th
5th

Note
title5th meeting

Attendees:

Anchor
4th
4th

Note
title4th meeting

Attendees: Eli, Kostas, Vicente, Rui, Adam, Antonio, Peter

Agenda:

  1. Content of the Study
  2. How to proceed

Recording:

http://emeeting.campusdomar.es/recording/4bcc81ced2cb65ced4c3f95720654625

Notes:

Peter predented the DRAFT table of contents for the Initial Study and opened the floor for comments and discussion.

Coordinator: IUCC

Contributors: GRNET, UVigo, ISEP

Deadline: 15 August 2014

-----

OER state-of-the-art and outlook 

1. State-of-the-art content/metadata repositories/referatories and their functionalities
1.1. Repository strategies and policies: National, European and global initiatives (GLOBE, openeducationeuropa.eu, etc...)
1.2. TERENA OER differentiator; primarily focusing on higher-education and research (big science groups)
1.3. Classification of the user community and their requirements in 3-5 years (end-users, e-learning service integrators)

2. Architecture design
2.1. Information model and metadata schema, recommendations (mandatory, optimal)
2.2. Standards and interoperability
2.3. Harvesting engine, standard protocol set, technical features
2.4. Preliminary analysis of connected repositories
2.5. User interface and web portal functional and usability requirements

3. Promotion and outreach
3.1. Engaging users and producers
3.2. Legal and rights issues

-----

Eli commented that Chapter 1 should give the bigger picture (open education, MOOC, etc.) and the whole study should narrow down to the specific recommendations and requirements. We have to clearly understand the current trends in education and response to that. Vicente added that first we should describe the "idealistic" picture reagarless of the existing tools and then in Chapter 2 we should take into acount what tools we can reuse and see how close we can get to the idealistic solution. The closer the better.

Antonio commented that the understanding on the typical workflow how professors develop courses and use tools (such as Moodle LMS) is the key. The proper liaison with the various institutional repositories (mostly DSpace-based in Portugal) is also important to support the federated model. Trust is the key for quality assurance (the use case of sexual education was mentioned where finding good quality educational content is difficult). Integrating with AAI and developing functions such as the peer review system could maintain the trust relationship with content providers.

Antonio and Vicente offered help to incorporate the professors' view and review the study from the education perspective.

It was also suggested to use Google docs for the collaboration and distribution of the study.

Peter noted that the administrative steps (contracting, etc.) will be done shortly after TNC2014.

 

...