4. Paris ‘OER declaration’
UNESCO 2012 Paris OER declaration:
Teaching, learning and research materials in any
medium, digital or otherwise, that reside in the public
domain or have been released under an open licence
that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and
redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions
6. The evolution of ‘open’ in higher ed.
• Distance education (anywhere, anytime, no
pre-requisites for entry and alternative
pathways for exit)
• Universities establish Open Access
repositories of scholarly resources
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• 2012 Year of the MOOC
8. Copyright in Australia
• Current Australian law less flexible than other
• Purpose-based Fair Dealing / statutory
• ALRC report on Copyright & the Digital Economy /
Productivity Commission – recommend Fair Use
• Exposure Draft 2016 – may simplify educational
• Online education will still need Open Licences!
9. Expansion of MOOCs
• Aust MOOCs / other ‘open’ course offerings
• 7 Aust unis OERu partners
• Business models differ
• Experimenting with payment for add-ons
• Commitment to Open Licensing for re-use?
10. ’Open’ at Australian universities
Other (iTunes U, Edcast,
MOOC platforms used by Australian universities 2014
Open MOOCs (P2Pu, OERu)
Other (iTunes U, Edcast, Class2Go,
Canvas, Future Learn, OpenLearning
11. Open licensing at Australian
No MOOC offered
All rights reserved
Open licence (Creative
University MOOC Offerings in Australia by licensing 2014
No MOOC offered
All rights reserved
Open licence (Creative Commons)
12. Open Education Licensing
• Joint Swinburne / University of Tasmania
• 2 yr research & development
• Funding from Australian Government Office
for Learning and Teaching
Examining OEP in Australian unis
Developing practical info / licensing tools
13. Project Plan
• June 2015 – Surveyed 389 staff from 38 Aust
universities – 33.9% response rate
• Asked managers / teachers / info experts
– Role of OEP in their institution
– Current / planned ‘open’ activities
– Platforms / licences used
– Policy/strategic reasons
– IP issues
• 2016 – used responses to develop OEL Toolkit
17. Types of learning and teaching
resources created by others that are
used or adapted
88% of participants use material found openly available on the internet
65% use scholarly publications.
Other popular responses included:
• resources created collaboratively in their organisation
• resources created by colleagues in their institution
• government produced resources
• resources created in another institution
• commercially produced resources
19. Why are Australian Universities participating in
• Enhancing global profile of institution’ (with 59% of
participants saying it was very important)
• Attracting more/new students.
• Innovating design of learning resources
• Exploring new pedagogical practices
• Marketing opportunities
20. Intellectual Property (IP) issues considered by
Universities when deciding whether to participant
in open education initiatives?
Primary concerns identified were:
• complexity of copyright and licensing (generally) (88%)
• Copyright ownership of material on the internet (83%)
• Understanding of open licences (75.5%)
• Risk of infringing someone else's copyright’ (71%)
21. Perceptions of copyright ownership
A majority of participants (48%) think their
institution is the primary holder of copyright
regarding to any teaching materials they develop
while some rights are granted to them.
30% believe their institution is the sole copyright
holder with no rights granted to them.
22. Overall findings
• Concern about complexity of licensing
• ‘Open’ doesn’t always allow re-use
• If copyright too difficult, resources not
developed or disseminated
• Lack of knowledge around licensing
• Policies still being developed
35. Support for this project has been provided by the Australia Government
Office for Learning and Teaching. The views in this presentation do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for
Learning and Teaching.
36. Please attribute the “OEL Project Team” with a link to
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under
University of Tasmania and Swinburne University of Technology logos are
registered property of those universities. Third party marks and brands are
the property of their respective holders.
Four significant groups of participants, based on their role within their institution were library/information management professionals, educational/instructional designers, and copyright officers and teachers/lecturers.
The rest of the sample were represented by senior executives, administration/management staff, technology professionals, and others which included a variety of managerial, compliance, and eLearning advisory roles.
To the question of the importance of OEP as a part of their institution’s activities, most participants agreed that OEPs were either somewhat important (50% of responses) or very important (13%), with 26% saying those were not important while 11% were unsure.
In regards to whether their institution has a current policy or strategic plan which includes in some way OERs or OEPs, a majority participants (43%) replied negatively; while 38% of participants said yes and another 29% were unsure. In the optional open-end response, over 30 responses were given: 11 participants wished to clarify that while their institution did not have a policy specifically in regards to OERs, the use of open resources was encouraged and implied, as well as mentioned within some other policy/strategic plan (most commonly within blended learning or teaching and learning plan or as part of the copyright strategy.
In the open ended question a few commented that their existing OER policy is primarily focused on sharing of research, or on MOOCs.
Most participants said yes (70%) to the question of whether their institution currently offer any open courses or open educational resources (such as MOOCs, OER repositories, free lecture podcasts or downloads), while 20% said no and another 10% were uncertain.
Those who answered yes to the question of whether their institution currently offered any open courses or open educational resources were further asked if their institution does offer open resources, what type of resources were available.
Participants could make multiple selections from the list of possible resources as well as write in their own options. The most common option (with 59% responses) was “MOOC/s and/or other forms of online courses available to anyone”. The next common response (33.33%) was “openly available online videos/podcasts (eg. audio/video recordings of lectures)”, where the third place was shared by “openly accessible repository of Educational Resources” and “online course modules, learning activities or lecture notes available to anyone” (both at 22.5%). A small group (7.5%) mentioned “textbooks available online for free use by anyone (i.e. Open Textbooks)” while for the rest the question was either ‘not applicable’ (15%) or they had other types of resources in their institutions which were not named here (11%). As for the latter group, resources included those created for such platforms as iTunesU, iBooks and YouTube.
It is interesting that while many participants provided in the comments a link to their institution’s open directory, they also noted that these resources were not truly ‘open’ because of their current “all rights reserved” licensing.
To the question of what types of resources are likely to be offered by their institutions in the future, most participants (47%) named MOOCs and other such courseware, while such answers as ‘openly available videos and podcasts’ and ‘online course modules and other course material like lecture notes’ were the second most popular (with 30% responses each). Other types of resources included ‘openly accessible repository of Educational Resources’ (29%), and ‘textbooks available online for free use by anyone (i.e. Open Textbooks)’ (12%)
To the question ‘what type of learning and teaching resources created by others do you use or adapt in your own teaching, (where participants could make multiple selections of answers) majority (88%) use material openly available on the internet while 65% use scholarly publications. Other popular responses included: ‘resources created collaboratively in your organisation’ (62%), ‘resources created by colleagues in your institution’ (57%), ‘government produced resources’ (55%), ‘resources created in another institution’ (47%), and ‘commercially produced resources’ (43%).
Most participants (69%) said their most common way of using teaching and learning resources created by others in their teaching is by adding hyperlinks to their material or by embedding the resource directly into the relevant webpage (60%). 53% do make changes to the copies materials while 51.% copy without changing. Further 39% combine multiple resources and 19% make annotations.
Ranked from the most common to the least common, the following platforms are used by Australian universities to deliver open educational services or products.
‘Other’ given options were Open edX, Wikiversity, Canvas Network, Wordpress, Equella and iBooks.
Among the top five most important factors for participating in OER were ‘enhancing global profile of institution’ with 59% saying it was very important), ‘attracting more/new students’ (54%), ‘innovative design of learning resources’ (53%), ‘exploring new pedagogical practices’ (52%) and ‘marketing opportunities’ (50.5%). Academic egos, the fear of behind ‘left behind’ (when compared to other universities), the easing of first-year student transition into the university and finding new opportunities to upskill/train staff were also named as important factors.
The least important factors were found to be: ‘developing of commercial partnerships’ (23.5%) deemed it not important) and ‘competition from other providers’ (21%).
* It’s tended to be more of a means to an end, and around marketing creating a channel to get people to engage with the university. But certainly, working in a library, there’s a fairly strong emphasis on making information as widely available, as freely available, as possible.
* …there’s risks as well with other people taking – this is when they put – other institutions taking a free ride off the resources. And there’s also – you’d have to think carefully about what you put out under the open licences. I guess we still want people to do our courses.
* I think, there’s more value in us releasing this and increasing the profile … than worrying about intellectual property.
In regards to the Intellectual Property (IP) issues considered by their institution when deciding whether to participant in open education initiatives, most participants mentioned such issues as ‘complexity of copyright and licensing’ (88%), ‘copyright ownership of material on the internet’ (83%), ‘understanding of open licences’ (75.5%) and ‘risk of infringing someone else's copyright’ (71%) as their institution’s primary concerns considered.
Other popular responses included ‘the potential for misuse of intellectual property’ (59%), ‘ability to licence external material’ (58%), ‘interaction with Part VA/VB of Australian Copyright Act 1968’ (52%) and ‘licensing terms applied by online distribution platform/provider’ (52%). A small group of participants (9%) did not think their institutions considered any IP issues.
I think the issue is that people like the idea, but openness is actually – it’s a quite a complicated – it’s not that straightforward. And people like to say open, and what they mean by that – everyone has a slightly different definition. And obviously there’s a spectrum of how you can talk about openness. But in my mind, if you’ve got an object that’s online that’s inaccessible, then it’s not particularly open even if it’s free.
So if you don’t’ feel absolutely confident with the licensing and how it’s stated, you’re just not going to do it. I just think you’d think, what’s the risk for me here and what’s the benefit?
At the point when we were engaged to build the Toolkit, the project team had finished their surveys.
The project team had identified many high quality resources that would be useful for people wishing to engage with OER.
Our brief was to provide a means for guiding users to the most relevant resources for their case.
We decided that a decision tree would be the best way to emulate the types of conversations between teaching staff and copyright experts.
We went through an iterative design and development process
We released versions of the Toolkit to invited groups of users to give us feedback along the way.
You can see here in the screen shots the key stages of the development:
The first is our flowchart, which represents the decision tree. It is a series of questions and answers along the many and various pathways a user could take.
The second is an interactive wireframe that roughly simulated the basic functionality and layout of the web application.
And the third is the web application implemented with styles and more advanced functionality.
Resources (case studies and continuum) etc
Lead into tony viewing toolkit
Teaching staff member at an Australian university
This person found an image online and wishes to use it in their online teaching
This teacher intends to ask their students to download and modify the image, then share it publically
The teacher wants to know whether there are any issues with this
You can pause me at any time to ask questions
Can access the Toolkit from the oel.edu.au
The disclaimer basically says we’re giving guidance, not advice.
Then you’re presented with helpful tips that most people ignore on the first time
- The key tip is that a run through the Toolkit applies to one resource, otherwise too complex.
Now we’re on the first question: given the scenario, we’ll click use.
Teaching practices, not personal reasons, so No.
We know that this person is using it for their employment, so this Yes.
Employer: This is a particularly useful question. We got lots of positive comments about how relevant the guidance was from this question.
So now I’ll open this up to you. Which Unis?
Show Guidance Preview
Link to the Copyright officer
We haven’t defined the answer to this question in the scenario: Yes or No? (different paths). Let’s select Yes.
[go with the flow]
Guidance: All the guidance snippets are presented now, and categorised
The teacher can expand whichever snippets are most relevant by reading the short titles.
Media > Modifying
PDF, take to copyright officer
[following the demonstration]
Today is a soft launch of the Toolkit.
It’s nearing completion.
In the following activities, you might like to refer to this Toolkit on your phone, tablet or laptop
Just keep in mind there is still work to be done.
The responsive interface so that it would be available on mobiles and tablets was only implemented last week.
Cross-browser (only tested on Chrome on Windows)
Question of sustainability:
5 year commitment to support (what this means)
Technical sustainability – at the moment it’s point dependent in that updates have to go through Tony. But… admin system is coming.
What the admin system will allow – a small group of project members to directly maintain (create/delete) content – questions and answers and guidance, plus produce some reports.
Where the admin system is at: conceptual stage