OERca v1 User Scenarios

From openmichigan

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (14:18, 22 July 2015) (edit) (undo)
m (1 revision)
 

Current revision

OERca v1 User Scenarios

Contents

[edit] Why?

Avoiding intellectual property (copyright, patents, etc) infringement is an important, and currently expensive, challenge in developing open education resources. This tool provides a cost-effective framework within which educational materials destined for open environments can be cleared of offending IP material. This publishing framework consists of a workflow (detailing steps on how to clear individual IP elements such as in-class video containing a Coke can on the instructor's desk) and a web-based application that supports the workflow by automating certain parts of the process and helping the user keep track of the "cleared status" of a particular material.

This framework is intended for individuals or groups interested in publishing open content material while paying due diligence to IP concerns at a reasonable cost (both in terms of pecuniary and human resources). We envision our primary audience consisting of faculty, students, education institution staff, librarians and self learners.

[edit] Who is this for?

This framework is for individuals or groups who want to manage the process of clearing their educational material to make it available to the public in a manner that allows the public the greatest freedom in their use of the material.

[edit] Who is this not for?

At the moment, this framework does not support the process of creating material (either individually or collaboratively). Thus, this will not meet the needs of people seeking such functionality.

[edit] Actors

These are primary user groups we have identified as potential users of the tool. For each grouping we develop a profile of a typical user and try to identify certain tasks that they currently undertake with respect to OER materials.

Faculty Users

Student Users

Staff Users

[edit] Scenarios

Faculty workshops

  -- Scenario of multiple faculty members (US and international) taking faculty 
 development workshops (in two or more locations) and afterward working 
 collaboratively and remotely (e.g., at other institutions) with other faculty 
 members and with dScribes on pilot content clearing and publishing efforts.

DScribe-dScribe2-UM

  -- Scenario of student-to-student interaction to dScribe a course at UM. One 
 student is an undergraduate dScribe and the other is a graduate dScribe2 who 
 work together to clear and publish the materials from a course.

DScribe-faculty-UM

  -- Scenario where the dScribe (UM) interacts with the faculty member (UM) to obtain 
 permission, approve replacement content, and complete a final review of the 
 materials to be published.

DScribe-faculty-int

  -- Scenario where the dScribe (international) interacts with the faculty member (international) to obtain 
 permission, approve replacement content, and complete a final review of the 
 materials to be published.

Faculty-tool

  -- Scenario where a UM faculty member goes through the publishing process using his
 own research papers, but assigning Creative Commons copyright licenses and getting 
 help from the UM OER office. His materials are put onto the UM OER website as well
 as his own.

Librarian-faculty

  -- Scenario of a faculty member working with a staff member from the Scholarly 
 Publishing Office to help organize and "clear" copyright issues for a paper to
 be published on the faculty's own website.

DScribe-dScribe-UM

  -- Scenario involving the UM dScribe and how she interacts with another 
 (non-defined) dScribe at UM. This interaction may take place in a physical or 
 a virtual environment, or a combination of both. The interaction will be around 
 specific course content, and general troubles or complaints.

Admin-tool

  -- Scenario where a specially privileged user is responsible for managing the tool 
 users and content. In this role, the user does not put up any content, instead
 she is responsible for facilitating this process for the other actors.

[edit] Gulfs

Execution

Evaluation

Gaps -- what OERca does not facilitate

Personal tools