Organising Open Educational Resources  <ul><li>Suzanne Hardy, Project Manager </li></ul><ul><li>Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter, D...
Background £5.7+£4=£9.7 millions
Good practice compliance table (managing risk) Explanation Risk of litigation from infringement of IPR/copyright or patien...
Trackability Openness More context More granularity Context? Confidence? Time? Formal peer review Star ratings/user comments
Let’s go...
Here we go again
cc:by-nc-sa Some rights reserved by Sami Oinonen source:
Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource conse...
blue sky
rediscover  ™ ip gimp  r&r PIMPS ✓
© Suzanne Hardy OER
ukoer medev ooer
cc:by-nc  Some rights reserved  by gruntzooki Source: [email_address] [email_address]
Acknowledgements <ul><li>Cardiff University </li></ul><ul><li>Imperial College </li></ul><ul><li>Keele University </li></u...
References <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Amee 2010 11_m


Published on

The presentation which accompanied workshops at AMEE2010 and the AMEE eLearning Symposium in Glasgow, given by Suzanne Hardy, Lindsay Wood and Megan Quentin-Baxter from the HIgher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Talk to your neighbour about who you are, where you are from and what your interest is in Open Educational Resources. Have you released materials with open licenses? Have you posted teaching and learning materials you have created on to an institutional VLE? What about a website? Into a repository?
  • We are going to talk today about a one year project we were involved in which was one of 29 in the HEFCE ( funded UK OER pilot programme which ran March 2009 – March 2010 The projects were administered by the Joint Information Systems Committee ( the Higher Education Academy ( The HEFCE is one of 4 home national funders which support the Higher Education Academy based in York, which works with institutions at a policy level, and with individuals via its accreditation of postgraduate courses in learning and teaching – accrediting people towards their local reward and recognition programmes, and professionalising teaching in UK HE. It also has a network of 24 Subject Centres each one based in a different HEI with a portfolio of subjects to work on nationally across all 4 home nations, and which primarily work with teachers on undergraduate programmes. Typically these would be based in a centre of excellence in those subjects. We work for the Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Vet Medicine, based in Newcastle University in the North East of England. Phase 2 of OER has recently been announced, with an extra 4 millions being committed in a climate of austerity, thus representing a significant policy movement in favour of OERs in the UK. We just heard we had been successful with another 2 projects and we will be talking a bit about them later.
  • One of the characteristics of an Open Educational Resource, is that it has an open license attached to it. These work in addition to existing copyright, which is made up of 2 parts: ownership and licencing. The copyright part is about ownership – Creative Commons deals with the licencing part, making explicit to users which they can do with the resource and under what circumstances. You always retain IPR. Creative Commons is the licencing regime we were required to apply, but its not the only one. There are others. CC has a range of licences with varying degrees of which you are allowed to do, and whether or not you can make commercial use of materials. The simplest is attritbution only, the most restrictive is attribution-noncommerical-noderivatives. There are very good reasons you may choose that licence – such as if you have material containing data which would be sensitive out of that particular context. We also had to tag everything with ukoer, and deposit materials or metadata into Jorum Open, the national repository at
  • Organising Open Educational Resources had 17 HEIs as partners, who carried out 12 workpackages. All we did was co-ordinate the work. Ther constituency did everything. The project ran for a year, with a budget of £500,000, with half of that in the form of the grant, and the rest as matched funding. The project was about enabling the community. To facilitate HEIs and individuals ‘go open’ by mitigating risk and implementing policies and procedures based on good practice. We wanted to shed light on pools of best practice, and share that across the constituency – making sure that everyone knows in their own context, the people, policies, procedures, and permissions involved in going OER.
  • We took an action research methodology, and developed a process centred around an iterative improvement cycle where the use of good-practice risk-assessment toolkits would highlight issues in ‘going OER’; and case studies would document each experience, and, in the early stages, issues with the toolkits. Because the toolkits have to be generic to many institutions they are being tested with all partners to understand their fitness for purpose. As the institutional policies become more robust and processes more embedded, the need for case studies and toolkits might lessen, or even disappear completely. We were also aware that not all resources, even with the best toolkit in the world, would reach ‘open’ status. We wanted the process to become self sustaining, be embedding policy change at a high level.
  • We went through a process of collecting information (mapping and categorisation) about teaching resources which could possibly be made available. All potential resources would be somewhere on this scale, and we deliberately wanted to find examples of resources at all the coloured levels in order to test our toolkits. Resources in the red area either haven’t been tested in the toolkits, or have been tested and will never be made open. Examples of this might include material where patient identity or respect for patients’ rights cannot be assured. In the orange region resources need a lot of work in order to get them ready to be made open: they have problems with IPR, or patient consent, or quality/branding. Materials in the yellow section were potentially easy to release, and typically these are the sort of materials that are already on websites, along with resources in the green area. An example of a green resource might be a course guide document already available on the web. It may be that the resource has gone out of date in which case they slip from green back into yellow. Once we had identified what kind of resource we had (green, amber or red) we would know how much effort we needed to invest in making it open. Once it is made open we wanted to ‘hallmark’ resources clearly with a Creative Commons licence. So what are the toolkits actually doing here?
  • However, across the UK staff and students are already uploading teaching and other materials to the Internet/web, especially to social networking sites. People are already doing it. Failure to follow good practice doesn’t mean that you can’t do it, it just means that you need more insurance. If you are big enough and have no conscience you can just put materials up and wait for the lawyers to get in touch. The rest of us have to be more careful. Our best practice compliance table has been developed to assist institutions to understand how their policies measure up, in order to safeguard themselves from litigation brought against them, and also to establish their own rights in relation to their own copy and moral rights. It is intended as a guide only and legal advice should be sought by those wishing to adopt good practice risk-management policies. So what do the toolkits look like?
  • These tensions came up during our case study collection cycles, and highlight some of the varying opinions as to what constitutes ‘open’. We found that some participants started more at the left hand side of this slide, but after over a year of releasing OERs are now much closer to the right hand side of the diagram. If you choose to deposit into somewhere like MedEdPortal, you’ll be at the left hand end, whilst Jorum Open will place you nearer the right hand end. And they are each as legitimate as the other.
  • Talk about your context in terms of releasing OERs. Do you know who deals with IPR and copyright in your institution? Think about who you might have to talk to, what your institutional policies are, who might you have to seek any permissions from?
  • Sharing and reflecting back across groups.
  • OK this time think specifically about your own learning and teachign resources. Do they have people pictures or patient data in them? What issues might you have associated with your teaching materials? If consent is required, do you have it and where is it stored? Who deals with consent in your context?
  • Sharing and reflecting back across groups. NB GMC guidance says where there are consent issues, continue to use but replace as soon as possible.
  • We had 34 recommedations: Here are the top ten: That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource Review institutional policies against good practice Aim to release a fraction of a programme rather than 100% UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the potential for re-using upstream rights (especially images) Have sophisticated ‘take-down’ policies Development of a tool to track resources and for them to ‘phone home’ (like software updaters) to check their status Staff reward system is established (formal recognition of using and reusing others’ resources, PDRs, promotion criteria, etc.) Several JorumOpen-specific recommendations such as bulk upload
  • As one recommendation we recommended the development of a consent commons – this carries on previous work undertaken by Ellaway et al in 2006 under the CHERRI project. Jane Williams from Bristol is taking work forward on reusing images in educational settings, via the Strategic Content Alliance, and we are presenting a paper about consent commons, which will facilitate the reuse of people centred materials, and how you ensure that the consent people have given for their data to be used in teaching is extant in the materials. Consent commons is a way of demonstrating diligence in the collection and storage of consent in non clinical use and settings – eg universities. We feel this is something we should all be doing anyway – in the same way we collect and store consent for treatment and research. Its good practice, but we would like to pick your brains as to how it might work and what it might look like……
  • So lets blue sky the idea…..
  • One of the outputs from the OOER project was a toolkit, to deal with risk management and facilitate good practice. It covers – as well as consent and copyright and IPR, all of these areas too: Insitutional,policy Quality assurance Global impact Sustainability Resource discovery Branding Reward and recognition Put in many places and syndicate Sign off The idea is that you can do everything from one interface. Take a resource, catalogue it, check it against the toolkits, post it to the most appropriate repository, syndicate the metadata to referatory services, and then utilise web 2.0 to tell people about it. In the first instance it takes a good while, as you have to investigate several areas in your own context, but our friends at Bristol don’t need to use them any more as that information has now become tacit, and they can tell if a resource is ready or not in a very short space of time.
  • Of course many HEIs will already have some kind of institutional repository, but we had outlined an API toolkit in our original plan and as APIs to many web 2.0 services are so readily available nowadays, and because we had recently recruited a great developer, we decided to have a go at a mashup of a number of APIs. The idea was to be able to make the process of putting your stuff out there, and enabling people to find it, as easy as possible, using only one form and one one interface….. James has a proof of concept using Picasa, YouTube, Delicious and Twitter working so far. Some other services are proving a bit more tricky because of the time it take to process the files when uploading them – e.g. Slideshare but we are still working on it. We think its going to be useful for the Subject Centre anyway, and know that the CORE materials project in Liverpool has been doing something similar..
  • If you want to find resources uploaded by our project (c. 2000) these are the search tems to use with your favourite search engine. And if you want to see more resources from other projects have a look at the UK national repository, Jorum. In terms of impact – we are already seeing some significant changes in come of the partner HEIs- new committees set up, policies being checked and refined. We have engaged with over 50% of UK schools in our subject areas, and by the time we have done out 2 nd projects that will include NHS partners and over 60% of schools.
  • So – 1 thing we can all do to improve our everyday practice – since students and staff are already sharing your materials despite them being behind authentication – is make sure we used openly licenced material in our own teaching resources. DEMO ONLINE There are new services appearing all the time offering advanced searches where you can limit your exploration to only content clearly licensed for use and reuse – typically under Creative Commons licenses. Check the advanced search options. For Google , go to the Advanced search option, then expand the Date, usage rights, numeric range, and more link, then choose your preferred licence type from the Usage rights drop down list. The most open option is the free to use, share or modify, even commercially option. For Flickr , go to the Advanced search option, scroll down, until you see the Creative Commons logo, click the check box to Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content , then choose the type of licenced content you prefer. By checking all the boxes in that section (i.e Find content to use commercially and Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon ) you will find the most openly licenced items. This new tool pastes the licence on to the image……
  • On the website you can find reports, the toolkit – version 3 will be significantly better in terms of the single interface, and available in November 2010. You can find information about OER2, PORSCHE and ACTOR projects, and find an increasing number of case studies – about 10 so far, though we have done about 60. Do get in touch with us and follow us on Twitter…..
  • Thanks for listening…..
  • Amee 2010 11_m

    1. 1. Organising Open Educational Resources <ul><li>Suzanne Hardy, Project Manager </li></ul><ul><li>Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter, Director </li></ul><ul><li>(Lindsay Wood, Project Officer) </li></ul><ul><li>Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine </li></ul><ul><li>Newcastle University, UK </li></ul>
    2. 2. Icebreaker
    3. 3. Background £5.7+£4=£9.7 millions
    4. 5. OOER
    5. 8. Good practice compliance table (managing risk) Explanation Risk of litigation from infringement of IPR/copyright or patient consent rights Action 3 Institutional policies are clearly in place to enable resources to be compared to the toolkits. Low. Institution follows best practice and has effective take down strategies. Institution able to legally pursue those infringing the institution’s rights. Periodically test resources against policies to keep policies under review. Keep abreast of media stories. Limited liability insurance required. 2 Compliance tested and policies are adequate in most but not all aspects to allow the compliance of a resource to be accurately estimated. A small number of areas where policies need to be further developed for complete clarity. Medium. Ownership of resources is likely to be clear. Good practice is followed in relation to patients. Take down and other ‘complaint’ policies are in place and being followed. Review those areas where developed is required, possibly in relation to e.g. staff not employed by the institution e.g. emeritus or visiting or NHS. It may be that a partner organisation requires improvement to their policies. Some liability insurance may be necessary. 1 Compliance tested but too few policies available or insufficiently specified to allow the compliance of any particular resource to good practice guidelines to be accurately estimated. Medium. It is unlikely that the ownership and therefore licensing of resources is clear. Resources theoretically owned by the institution could be being ripped off. Collate suite of examples of best practice and review against existing institutional policies. Follow due process to amend and implement those which are relevant to the institution. Take out liability insurance . 0 Compliance with the toolkits unknown/untested. Compliance has been tested and materials failed to pass. High/Unknown. Risk may be minimal if resource was developed based on best practice principles. Institutional policy status (ownership, consent) is unknown. Establish a task force to test some resources against institutional policies; then follow 1-3 below. Take out liability insurance.
    6. 9. Trackability Openness More context More granularity Context? Confidence? Time? Formal peer review Star ratings/user comments
    7. 10. Let’s go...
    8. 11. ©
    9. 12. Reflection
    10. 13. Here we go again
    11. 15. Reflection
    12. 16. cc:by-nc-sa Some rights reserved by Sami Oinonen source:
    13. 17. Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource consent commons
    14. 18. blue sky
    15. 19. rediscover  ™ ip gimp  r&r PIMPS ✓
    16. 20. © Suzanne Hardy OER
    17. 21. ukoer medev ooer
    18. 22. cc:by-nc Some rights reserved by gruntzooki Source:
    19. 23. [email_address] [email_address]
    20. 24. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Cardiff University </li></ul><ul><li>Imperial College </li></ul><ul><li>Keele University </li></ul><ul><li>London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine </li></ul><ul><li>Newcastle University </li></ul><ul><li>Queen’s University, Belfast </li></ul><ul><li>St George’s University of London </li></ul><ul><li>University of Bedfordshire </li></ul><ul><li>University of Bristol </li></ul><ul><li>University of Edinburgh </li></ul><ul><li>University of Liverpool </li></ul><ul><li>University of Nottingham </li></ul><ul><li>University of Oxford </li></ul><ul><li>University of Southanmpton </li></ul><ul><li>University of Warwick </li></ul>
    21. 26. References <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    1. Gostou de algum slide específico?

      Recortar slides é uma maneira fácil de colecionar informações para acessar mais tarde.