Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sustainable policies, sustainable resources and predictions for sustainable re-use: lessons from the OOER project

1,089 views

Published on

Presentation at SCORE event 'Making Open the easiest option' at Leeds, 13 May 2010 - speakers Megan Quenin-Baxter Thomson and Suzanne Hardy, Newcastle and OOER project

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sustainable policies, sustainable resources and predictions for sustainable re-use: lessons from the OOER project

  1. 1. Sustainable policies, sustainable resources and predictions for sustainable re-use: lessons from the OOER project Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter Director, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine (MEDEV) Suzanne Hardy MEDEV Senior Advisor and OOER Project Manager Newcastle University www.medev.ac.uk
  2. 2. Subject strand projects www.medev.ac.uk
  3. 3. Pros and cons of ‘going OER’ (values) <ul><li>Formalise current ‘ad hoc’ practice </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing results of the public purse </li></ul><ul><li>Exposing University brand to new markets – students, public, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Anyone can contribute </li></ul><ul><li>Materials are more accessible for our own (and other) students </li></ul><ul><li>Whole Programmes/Modules; individual documents; lectures; tests; images; etc. clarifying ‘ownership’ and ‘licencing’ </li></ul><ul><li>Institutions can establish and enforce high quality policies </li></ul><ul><li>A single place where materials are searchable/stored/available from </li></ul><ul><li>Not all staff will participate </li></ul><ul><li>Giving away the ‘crown jewels’ </li></ul><ul><li>Quality could be good or bad (content = poor quality or ‘wrong’?) </li></ul><ul><li>How do you find good quality? </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Third parties’ might abuse the licence and it would cost you to sue </li></ul><ul><li>Risk of infringing third party rights </li></ul><ul><li>Better to remain in the dark – you don’t know WHAT you might find out </li></ul><ul><li>Funding for JorumOpen might be stopped </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  4. 4. OOER: iterative improvement cycle www.medev.ac.uk
  5. 5. OOER: readiness categorisation pyramid www.medev.ac.uk
  6. 6. Good practice compliance table (managing risk) www.medev.ac.uk 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.
  7. 7. Toolkits–asking necessary questions with links to sample policy documents/further information www.medev.ac.uk Sample policy documents Y Start Identify content type Image/video/audio? Patient data? Y Y Text? N N N Refer to WP3 workflow Refer to WP2 workflow Refer to WP5 workflow Is the IPR status clear? Y N Refer to WP6 workflow Collect basic metadata about resource
  8. 8. www.medev.ac.uk <ul><li>Available from www.medev.ac.uk/oer </li></ul>
  9. 9. www.medev.ac.uk cc by-nc-sa http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertfrancis/100775342/ www.medev.ac.uk/oer/value.html
  10. 10. ‘ Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) <ul><li>All materials correctly attributed to publisher according to published guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Images have been altered (labels) to suit commentary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Images are ‘embedded’ (not easily copied and pasted) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recording is lower quality than the original </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently running on an internal virtual learning environment (behind a login) </li></ul><ul><li>What issues or policy implications exist? </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  11. 11. ‘ Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) <ul><li>All materials correctly attributed to publisher according to published guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Images have been altered (labels) to suit commentary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Images are ‘embedded’ (not easily copied and pasted) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recording is lower quality than the original </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently running on an internal virtual learning environment (behind a login) </li></ul><ul><li>What issues or policy implications exist? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rights of the publisher – images openly available; images ‘defaced’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential to raise the profile of the publisher – more people buy books? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publisher may allow inclusion of materials in OER but we have to clear rights </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  12. 12. Third party upstream rights and international collaboration <ul><li>Reached agreement with one publisher (InstantAnatomy) to allow their materials to be embedded in OER materials </li></ul><ul><li>OOER is negotiating with Elsevier, approached others such as Primal Pictures and planning to approach e.g. Wiley Blackwell </li></ul><ul><li>MedEdPortal – agreement for metadata from MedEdPortal to go into JorumOpen </li></ul><ul><li>We need to involve the JISC collections and rights clearance groups to establish agreement for terms under which third party materials can be used in OER </li></ul><ul><li>What might be those terms? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower quality visuals? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Embedded – not able to be copied out? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Micropayments? How, where, when? </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  13. 13. Patient and non-patient consent <ul><li>Recordings of people (stills, videos, audios, performances, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers (academics, clinicians, practice/work based learning tutors, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students and ‘product placement’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role players/actors/performers/hired help (including recording crew) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patients/patient families/care workers/support staff/members of public, etc. (we are working with the GMC to review the guidelines for patient recordings) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consent Commons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A human subject version of Creative Commons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accepts a basic human right to refuse their image/voice appearing and, where they have previously consented, their right to withdraw their consent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Would work like Creative Commons in that you hallmark material with the consent status and when consent needs to be reviewed (if ever) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has levels of release (e.g. Closed; ‘medic restrict’; review[date]; fully open) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terms of the consent needs to be stored with/near the resource </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. ‘ Resources’ identified for inclusion www.medev.ac.uk Resources identified for inclusion per site Case studies WP4 database Newcastle University 8 (3) 949 University of Oxford 3 (1) 14 University of Aberdeen 4 (2) 35 The Royal Veterinary College 5 (1) 64 University of Nottingham 6 (3) 19 University of Southampton 5 (1) TBC University of Bristol 4 (1) 133 Queen’s University Belfast 4 (2) 7 Imperial College 2 (1) 28 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 1 (1) 2 St Georges, University of London 4 (2) 63 Cardiff University 2 TBC Bedfordshire University 2 TBC University of Edinburgh 2 5 University of Warwick 2 TBC Keele University 2 (1) TBC Non partner (e.g. other HEIs) 5 800 Total 60 (19) ~2000
  15. 15. www.medev.ac.uk www.jorum.ac.uk
  16. 16. Recommendations <ul><li>That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences </li></ul><ul><li>Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource </li></ul><ul><li>Review institutional policies against good practice </li></ul><ul><li>Aim to release a fraction of a programme rather than 100% </li></ul><ul><li>UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the potential for re-using upstream rights (especially images) </li></ul><ul><li>Have sophisticated ‘take-down’ policies </li></ul><ul><li>Development of a tool to track resources and for them to ‘phone home’ (like software updaters) to check their status </li></ul><ul><li>Staff reward system is established (formal recognition of using and reusing others’ resources, PDRs, promotion criteria, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Several JorumOpen-specific recommendations such as bulk upload </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  17. 17. Setting the scene Academic Institution LCMS autonomous specialized educational modules has/creates cc: by-nc-sa Graphics courtesy of Chara Balasubramiam St George’s, University of London uses uses
  18. 18. Setting the scene Academic Institution LCMS autonomous specialized educational modules Academic Institution LCMS autonomous specialized educational modules Academic Institution LCMS autonomous specialized educational modules <ul><li>Inter-institution communication cannot always be effective </li></ul>cc: by-nc-sa Graphics courtesy of Chara Balasubramiam St George’s, University of London
  19. 19. Product vs process Module specification documents Assessment Feedback Student handbooks Lectures Work based learning Handouts CAL Seminars PBL/groupwork Library Discussions Student generated content Hidden curriculum Labwork Tutorials Videos Podcasts Animations Reading lists Social networking Blogs Wikis Bookmarks cc: by-nc-sa
  20. 20. Product vs process www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/3213525752/ cc: by-nc-sa
  21. 21. Resource collections cc: by-nc-sa
  22. 22. National repository VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE Active staff involvement Photo: Miroslav Vajdia http://11031.openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlike cc: by-nc-sa
  23. 23. VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE VLE RSS <ul><li>Exceptional aggregation services </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic web </li></ul><ul><li>Linked data </li></ul>Photo: Miroslav Vajdia http://11031.openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlike cc: by-nc-sa
  24. 24. PIMPS* example *Put in many places & syndicate www.medev.ac.uk/oer cc: by-nc-sa
  25. 25. Diametric opposition? Trackability Openness More context More granularity Context? Confidence? Time? Formal peer review Star ratings/user comments cc: by-nc-sa
  26. 26. Tribes <ul><li>Thematic or ‘underground’ groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specialised </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of trust </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loose CoP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of confidence in product in development </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  27. 27. In conclusion <ul><li>The UK aims to be a major player in open educational resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The JISC has issued a call for phase II of the OER programme with bids due by 24 June 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Further work is needed on, for example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National repository vs. distributed content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource discovery and reuse and associated issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reputation and branding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upstream rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Materials going out of date, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Looking to collaborate (nationally and internationally) </li></ul><ul><li>We don’t know the long term implications of the programme </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  28. 28. Acknowledgements: project partners www.medev.ac.uk
  29. 29. Acknowledgements www.medev.ac.uk
  30. 30. References <ul><li>Li Yuan, Sheila MacNeil and Wilbert Kraan. Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education . JISC CETIS. 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Catherine Fleming and Moira Massey. Jorum Open Educational Resources (OER) Report . 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Marshall S. Smith. Opening Education . Science. 89 ; 323. 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>Giving Knowledge for Free: the Emergence of Open Educational Resources . OECD. 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>WM-Share Final Report . WM-Share. 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Lou McGill, Sarah Currier, Charles Duncan, Peter Douglas. Good Intentions: improving the evidence base in support of sharing and learning materials . McGill et al . 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>CHERRI, Ellaway, R. et al http://www.cherri.mvm.ed.ac.uk/ </li></ul><ul><li>GMC patient consent guidance http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_index.asp </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
  31. 31. Call: 0191 222 5888 Email: [email_address] [email_address] Toolkits: www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ cc some rights reserved Stefan Baudy www.flickr.com/photos/-bast-/349497988/

×