 Yeah, we are really delighted to be here today and to present our research and development on infrastructures for the use of OER. It's only going to be Nadine and me today, but I think that will be good. In our presentation we will start with some background information on our research project and our special focus will be on version management. After describing, shortly describing our interview study and some main results, we will then present some examples of our prototypical concept, including different phases of development and evaluation, so that you will get an insight into what we have done with our research. Now Nadine will start with the background information on our project. Yes, first of all, our research is embedded in a project called Educational Architecture, which has the goal to make finding OER in German higher education landscape easier. Currently, in Germany, OER repositories are developed in several individual federal states. As they act concerning education rather independently. With the aim of reducing these federal organizational structures, the OER project explores technical, dialectical and organizational requirements for designing a distributed infrastructure for OER. In our subproject, we work on a research study with focus on expectations and needs of higher education. Teachers for OER and for OER infrastructures with a special focus on version management functions and collaborative elements. Our goal was to identify and develop possible solutions for designing OER platforms that can be adopted by developers. We are aware that there are established solutions and platforms for OER in the international environment, but our concern was to examine specific requirements from the German perspective. As I mentioned before, one special focus was on version management. And the first question is, what does version management have to do with OER? First of all, version control is mostly associated with software development and collaboratively working and editing software code. And this includes several functions. And these functions concern two different aspects, versions and derivatives. And by changing, editing, updating one's own material, new versions were created. And especially when working together, version history and tracking changes are important. And derivatives are created by using and adapting content of others. These so-called forks enable a connection between a derivative and the original version. And both scenarios can be adopted for OER when we think of revising, reusing, remixing and redistributing content according to the five R's. And in the context of OER, challenges that occur through different material types and file formats need to be considered. Therefore, version management offers potential to be adopted for OER, but further research is needed regarding functions and design of a user-friendly interface for OER which reaches needs and requirements of users. To get insight into those specific research needs and our open questions, we decided to conduct a semi-structured interview study with higher education teachers in German-speaking countries, focusing on the research questions, how do teachers create use and process OER, in which framework conditions does the work with OER take place? What difficulties do teachers encounter when working with OER? What expectations do teachers have about working with OER? And most importantly, or at least that's what we are focusing on here, is how can teachers benefit from version management functionalities? We conducted the interviews from July until September 2020. So, yeah, during the pandemic as well. We talked with 23 German-speaking university lecturers from Germany and Austria, and we conducted a video interviews that lasted 30 to 60 minutes. Since the focus on the study was, or is on the practices of higher education teachers with OER as well as the explicit and implicit knowledge about the use of OER, we conducted the interviews with teachers with OER experience only, but in order to adequately represent the diversity of active OER users. Some of the interview teachers just first encountered with creating OER within the framework of projects mostly, and other teachers have been continuously practicing OER within the teaching routine for several years. In terms of subject, six teachers came from the natural sciences and 11 participants from humanities and social sciences. As a introductory narrative stimulus, the teachers were asked to present one of their own OER learning materials, so we therefore gained some knowledge about their real OER experience and expertise right at the beginning from the interviews. Now I will be continuing with some main results. As we all know, OER can comprise material types with different scopes. This ranges from illustrations to presentations and videos to entire courses. OER that are published are often extensive material types with a high production effort, such as videos or courses. Thanks Nadine. This contrasts with the fact that teachers prefer external materials with a small scope that can be used independently, such as graphics, illustrations or videos, for use in their materials. This also goes hand in hand with practice of integrating individual elements of external materials into their own materials and adapting them into some cases. In front of this background, in OER platforms, it should be possible to divide extensive materials into individual thematic units or formats. Lecturers considered the provision of new versions to be useful and sensible, also in terms of quality assurance and for different scenarios. Reasons given for the availability of different versions include that changes over time can be shown and different editing scenarios can be provided. Likewise, deleting or archiving older versions should be possible to maintain freedom of choice and the availability of older versions so that incorrect versions do not remain in circulation. But when presenting different versions and overview in form of a version history is desired by the lecturers, it should also be possible to track changes between versions. Another really important factor was feedback and collaboration. The teachers seemed to be very interested in learning about external use, editing and further dissemination of the materials. For example, to obtain suggestions for possible applications and of course, teachers would like to receive feedback and suggestions on their own materials to improve and develop their content. The development of OER community with opportunities to exchange materials can also help to create cross-site collaborations, as we all know. An active community can furthermore help to take over regular updating needs as teachers' own resources are not always as sufficient, especially after projects have ended. For collaborative editing of materials, teachers need a clear distribution of roles, which makes it possible for the responsible person to check and accept or reject changes made by the editors. Collaborative authoring is also prepared in a closed space, though, so that a new version can be made openly available only after a certain stage of change has been reached. That was the main result and we're now going over to the prototypical concepts or something practical. Yes, based on these results and analyzed version management functions, we developed a prototype concept for managing versions and derivatives of OER with collaborative elements. We focused on requirements of users, relevant functions, intuitive usability, especially comprehensible terms and arrangements, as well as usage and practice. What we didn't focus on are design elements and technical implementation. The development of the prototype comprised four versions, including a three-stage iterative evaluation process. Based on the interview results, the first version was created and prepared for testing. The first user test was conducted with e-learning staff during a focus group workshop with 12 participants. This was followed by six individual sessions with higher education teachers who gave their feedback while running through different scenarios. After these results have been included into the prototype, the interview participants were asked to take part in a survey in order to validate their requirements and opinions from the interviews. Currently, we are finalizing the concept as a video which is about to be published. The evaluation process resulted in some additional or adapted functions, for example, regarding filtering different material types and change comments were divided into mandatory or pre-selection and optional free text, and the community space was developed and expanded as work in progress area. We also asked for comprehensible terms and disability of processes. As we know, derivative is not a common term. We figured out suitable terms for replacing it and creating a derivative we described as add-on version and overview as further versions. The concept involves views and functions regarding to add, archive and merge versions as well as a community and a working space. In the following slides, I will present some examples. Here you can see a detailed view of a resource and its version history. The total resource gets in DOI automatically and for single versions, authors can optionally assign a DOI. Modifications are described with the pre-selection and detail change comments can be specified. Here we have an example of Tony testing as an author of this resource and he can add a new version or archive order versions. In this view, Tony has edited a resource from another author and he would like to provide an own version. By clicking on add new, add own version, a new resource with Tony as author is created and a link to the original resource is integrated here to indicate this as derivative and to remain a connection between these resources. In the record of the original resource, all derivatives can be viewed under further versions so they are merged there. At last year is a brief look into the community space where work in progress materials can be shared and authors can ask for contributions. In our evaluation, we asked how intuitive the functions are for users and concerning this, we got quite good feedback as well as the practical applicability seems to be on the right track. To conclude, we have to admit that our study has some limitations due to the number of interview participants. We are pretty sure that there are there are be more requirements and functions which should be considered but couldn't be identified throughout our current research. And in addition, the evaluation took place in a predefined scenario and not under real conditions. As next step, we will publish a video presenting all functions as a start only in German. And a technical concept of the prototype with implementation in an OER repository is desired but out of scope of this research project. So and finally, we're interested in your individual situations so which OER platforms do teachers use at your institutions and do these platforms integrate version management functions or collaborative elements. And yeah, we can maybe we can discuss this at the end. Thank you for your attention and we are finished.