http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
g
LangOER – EdReNe Conference‘Open Education: promoting diversity for European Languages’ Brussels, 26 - 27 September 2016
New networking opportunities
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gGoal
LRE
EdReNe Networkstronger synergies
issues and challenges related to Educational Repositories and OERs
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gAgenda
LRE Subcommittee (Operational Model, Funding & Governance)EUN/LRE proposal
Open DiscussionLRE proposal / Other suggestions by EdReNe members for how networking opportunities can be enhanced
Issues and challenges related to Educational Repositories and OERs
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLearning Resource Exchange (LRE) for schools
Developed by EUN to provide MoE with access to a network of learning content repositories
A Pan-European Service: Resources that “travel well”
Launched in December 2008
> 240.000 OERs from 69+ content providers
Its evolution has been supported by MoE in Europe and EC-funded projects
LRE in a nutshell
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLRE Operational Model (Funding & Governance)• MoE in the Subcommittee are Founding
Members (annual membership fee of €7,000)
• Regions and industry can become LRE Associate Members
(€7,000 per annum)• Smaller organizations – LRE Subscription Members (€2,000 for the first year)
• Changes to statutes of LRE governance require agreement of a majority of Founding Members (MoE)
• Chair elected every two years
• Members have two ftf meetings and some online meetings
• European Schoolnet provides the Secretariat
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLRE subcommittee members (2016)7 Founding Members (MoE)
1. ANSAS (former INDIRE) (IT)2. Computer Technology Institute & Press - Diophantus (CTI) /
Hellenic Ministry of Education (GR)3. Kennisnet (NL)4. Klascement, BE/FL5. Portuguese Ministry of Education (PT)6. Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) (SE)7. Swiss Agency for ICT in Education (CH)
Contribute to the development of annual LRE work plan and the long-term LRE development strategy
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLRE Strengths
LRE is Subcommittee of the European SchoolNet - A Network of MoE (contacts with relevant authorities)
LRE has annual budget (7K annual membership fee) and Secretariat by EUN
LRE develops annual work plan
LRE has an infrastructure (LRE portal, > 245.000 OERs that ‘travel well’)
LRE has strong technical expertise in Learning Objects, Metadata Schemes, Standards and Interoperability
LRE has long standing experience In evaluating OER collections and enriching OERs with metadata
LRE can host ftf meetings, organize and run webinars, conduct studies, publish books, etc.
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLRE Weaknesses
Only 7 members – MoE (limited networking opportunities among members)
LRE infrastructure not fully exploited Low use of LRE portal and widget (& low promotion)
The OER landscape is now very different than when EUN launched the LRE (new directions needed)
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
g EdReNe Network
Large Network
Expertise in Educational Repositories
Annual events / conferences – Sharing of best practices
> 35 members (public & private sector) - many opportunities for networking among members
Diversity: Content providers, business partners, non-profit institutes, governmental organizations etc.
No Budget
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gLRE Survey Results 2016
EUN should explore how closer synergies could be developed with
the EdReNe network,particularly with regard to technical issues related to the management of
learning content repositories
A clear majority of LRE members strongly agreed with this proposal
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gEUN/LRE Proposal
Possibility for the EUN LRE Secretariat to help organize joint events and activities
Two face-to-face meetings per year?Two online meetings/webinars?Topics to be decided by LRE/EdReNe members
Not proposing a change to LRE governance model or a formal merging of the LRE and EdReNe
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gDISCUSSION ISSUES (1)
What are the key issues (technical, pedagogical) that educational repository owners now face?
http
://lre
fors
choo
ls.eu
n.or
gDISCUSSION ISSUES (2)
How can we better address these in a period when funding opportunities are more limited?