# of items: 2385
           # of reports: 319

Why open educational resources repositories fail - Review of quality assurance approaches

TitleWhy open educational resources repositories fail - Review of quality assurance approaches
Publication TypeConference Proceedings
Year of Publication2014
AuthorsManouselis, N., Pawlowski J., & Clements K.
PublisherEDULEARN14 Proceedings
Date Published07/2014
Place PublishedBarcelona, Spain
Type of Work6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies: July 7-9, 2014
Keywordslearning object repositories, open content, Open Educational Resources, quality assurance

Regardless of the amount of open educational resources (OER) available, many learning object repositories LORs fail to attract active users and sustainable funding solutions. Previous studies indicate that quality of OER plays a significant role in the success of the repositories; however, there is a lack of systematic deeper understanding of this connection. In this qualitative study we interviewed 35 managers/developers of 27 national, thematic and federated LORs in regards of the LORs’ quality approaches and success. The key findings of this study show that comprehensive quality approach leads to success of the repository in most cases, the key instruments for quality assurance being expert and peer reviews. Contribution of this research is the review of LOR quality approaches. This study helps LOR developers to design sustainable quality assurance approaches.


All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.

Refereed DesignationRefereed
clementspawlowskimanouselisedulearn2014finaldraft.pdf606.94 KB
Total votes: 194