Dig prof oer_mqb_sh_v4_june2011


Published on

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
  • LliDA report
  • Lindsay Wood, Project Officer HEFCE, JISC and HEA
  • There is emerging evidence that 50% of staff time/resources on preparation for teaching can be saved by engaging with OER This ercent blog post sets out come compelling evidence for students using OER and that an OER approach can save time and money. The OU has also published work which indicates that student engage with OER prior to enrolling on the course, and only enrol when they know they can pass – so OER can improve retention rates at University.
  • Just as we expect students and junior staff to model professional behaviours in real life, we need them to do the same in the digital environment.
  • IPR is made up of Patents, Trade marks, Designs, and Copyright. This presentation focuses on Copyright as the most key IPR relating to OER. The others protect designs, functionality and appearances.
  • Economic rights include the rights to financially exploit the creation, and moral rights include the right to have the author ’s name attributed on copies. Authors can (explicitly) waive, assign (as if to a publisher), licence or sell the ownership of their works.
  • A licence is simply a legal statement saying what you can and cannot do with the copyright works. Some organisations (such as the Copyright Licencing Agency) use licencing schemes (standard legal clauses) which are well recognised. This makes it easier for owners to share, for users to understand the rules of use, and for both parties to observe protocol. Creative Commons provides some well-recognised licencing schemes.
  • Such as ‘by’ attribution only (meaning that others have to acknowledge you as the original author); non-commercial to prevent others from making money out of your copyright.
  • The best way to safeguard yourself and your organisation against copyright infringement is to develop appropriate policies, advertise the policy clearly, train everyone in how to implement it, and follow it. For example, if you have a policy which says that ‘this material has been produced to the highest possible ethical standards and anyone with any concerns should contact xxx in writing after which the offending material will be removed within 10 working days pending investigation’. Then if someone contacts you, do what your policy says. Alternatively, you could just increase your annual insurance premiums to give you greater liability insurance in case of a breach (more on risk in a moment). Together with policies you could also use disclaimers: ‘the material provided on this site has been checked according to xxx however no warranties express or implied…’
  • A cross the UK staff and students are already uploading teaching and other materials to the Internet/web, especially to social networking sites. Failure to follow best practice doesn ’ t mean that you can ’ t do it, it just means that you need more insurance. If you have deep pockets and have little conscience you can put materials up, and wait for lawyers to get in touch. The ‘ best practice compliance ’ table developed in the OOER project was developed to assist institutions to understand how their policies measured up, in order to safeguard themselves from litigation brought against them, and also to establish their own rights in relation to their own copyrights. It is intended as a guide only and legal advice should be sought by those wishing to adopt good practice risk-management policies.
  • While copyright is an automatic right, data protection is better described as a set of principles. Arising from the perspective of patient consent (patient data is classed as ‘sensitive’ under the DPAct1998) for patient materials used in teaching, we argue for additional tools to support consent from people. When creating open educational resources copyright doesn’t quite go far enough to recognise the rights of people who are represented to be respected (whether they have copyright or not). Representation could be a photograph, voice or video recording, data set or patient story. For example, if a person has agreed for their photograph to appear in your open educational resources (they are a student, a member of staff, an actor, etc.), and they pass away, what do you do if their family asks you to take down the OER? (What you are legally required to do may be different to what you would choose to do, in principle). Therefore you are essentially operating ‘policies’.
  • A human consent version of a Creative Commons licence would enable much more sophisticated recognition of the role and rights of people (whether they are the ‘creators’ or not) to be treated fairly and with respect. We need new technologies to support the implementation of Consent Commons – such as the ability to inform users that a resource has been updated or ‘taken down’.
  • JW The OOER project recommended just getting consent – and then we are clear. SH We feel this is something we should all be doing anyway – in the same way we collect and store consent for treatment and research. And in the same way as we reference in publications. It should be as easy and as embedded in practice as that. Its about good practice which is easy and practical to implement. It ’s about covering our backs and trying to think further down the line – making the consent status clear for other users who may use this recording in a different way. What a consent license could do is make the patients rights clear alongside the owner ’s rights.
  • These are only a few of the many recommendations, but they are the ones which we want to highlight to you . We really need institutions to use CC licences on their works, to clarify exactly who owns what and how it may be used. Institutions frightened of giving away the ‘crown jewels’ may be perfectly happy with releasing up to 75% of a module or programme (which may still be useful to others). To protect ourselves and our colleagues into the future we need sophisticated searching (reputation based materials) and take down policies. We would like to know that staff can be rewarded for getting involved in this, as contributors and users of other people’s resources. We also had many recommendations for JorumOpen (the national repository) who we were working with to implement as many as we can.
  • Do you feel equipped to give students advice on acting professionally in the digital environment?
  • No point in blocking social networking sites, or in discouraging natural behaviours – students have to be students as the GMC itself points out Which presents us with somewhat of a dichotomy
  • How many of us use images/videos/diagrams we have found on the internet in our teaching resources? How confident do you feel about putting your resources in digital public places? Why aren’t you confident? How many people here know how to find safe risk free content? How do you know its safe and risk free?
  • As we would attribute any image we find, we would like to see consent being explicitly stated in the same way as these examples
  • Next I want to tell you about a couple of projects which you might be interested in, and the first of which is seeking your expert input. And the second of which might help you feel more confident in giving advice on being professional in social media contexts.
  • Would it be appropriate to start to think about a 23 things for ethics in social media?
  • Managing risk and encouraging good practice Plagiarism well understood Refencing and citation = but that what about acknowledging sources in teaching materials? Where did that image com from? Whose is it? What are the barriers to adopting good practice in learning and teaching? And who is responsible for ensuring we do the best we can?
  • 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…..
  • There is definitely an appetite for change I met with Alaster Rutherford from NICE last week, who is eager to have NICE guidance and NHS evidence content shared more widely. I had an email this morning from colleagues at the DH who are meeting on Friday – we epxect to talk again after that. There are more and more tools to help make sharing openly easier and easier. Creative Commons licensed content is awesome, but attributing it properly can be difficult and confusing. The first rule for re-using openly licensed content is that you have to properly attribute the creator. There are specific requirements for what needs to go into that attribution, but those requirements can be confusing and hard to find. The solution: A simple tool everyone can use to do the right thing with the click of a button. That’s why we’re building Open Attribute, a suite of tools that makes it ridiculously simple for anyone to copy and paste the correct attribution for any CC licensed work. These tools will query the metadata around a CC-licensed object and produce a properly formatted attribution that users can copy and paste wherever they need to.
  • Dig prof oer_mqb_sh_v4_june2011

    1. 1. Digital professionalism and consent commons - helping to engender trust? Megan Quentin-Baxter & Suzanne Hardy Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine megan@medev.ac.uk suzanne@medev.ac.uk
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Digital professionalism and consent commons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of copying digital learning resources in health </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IPR, copyright and Creative Commons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Using recordings of people in learning resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding and managing risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organisational policies and disclaimers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Towards a consent commons for teaching materials </li></ul><ul><li>What tools, mechanisms and architecture are available </li></ul>
    3. 3. “ learners' information literacies are relatively weak but learners have little awareness of the problem ” Beetham et al 2009
    4. 4. “ many medical students seem unaware of or unconcerned with the possible ramifications of sharing personal information in publicly available online profiles even though such information could affect their professional lives ” Ferdig et al, 2008
    5. 5. UK policy context <ul><li>Patient voice, societal change </li></ul><ul><li>Law (devolution), PSRBs, associations </li></ul><ul><li>HEFCE JISC/Academy open educational resources (OER) programme (publishing and sharing educational content) </li></ul><ul><li>Projects in health and social care </li></ul><ul><li>Health and social care educational context </li></ul><ul><li>Educational context </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Attribution and disclaimer </li></ul>
    6. 6. UK HEFCE JISC/Academy OER programme <ul><li>Organising Open Educational Resources (OOER) </li></ul><ul><li>[PHORUS – HSaP] </li></ul><ul><li>Phase 1 OER project </li></ul><ul><li>250K - Apr 2009-Mar 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Investigated institutional practice, developed toolkits, disseminated widely </li></ul><ul><li>15 UK partners </li></ul><ul><li>www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ </li></ul><ul><li>PORSCHE & ACTOR </li></ul><ul><li>[SWAPBox – SWAP] </li></ul><ul><li>Phase 2 OER projects </li></ul><ul><li>£125K & £20K respectively </li></ul><ul><li>Linking NHS and academic networks </li></ul><ul><li>Disseminating through ‘clinical education’ programmes (training the trainers) </li></ul>
    7. 7. Sharing openly is good <ul><li>Use of public funds/money, cost savings, collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Legally defensible </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages for student recruitment and participation, learning, satisfaction and retention </li></ul><ul><li>Equality of access, helping the developing world </li></ul><ul><li>Students are using OER and it does save time: blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/learningtechnology/2011/02/08/it-turns-out-that-oer-does-save-time-and-students-do-use-them/ </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/value/
    8. 8. Digital professionalism <ul><li>To be a digital professional every member of staff who contributes to curriculum delivery, in both NHS and academic settings should be able to identify, model and understand professional behaviour in the digital environment. </li></ul>CC-BY Official US Navy Imagery www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5509486066/
    9. 9. <ul><li>Information/resources increasingly easy to find </li></ul><ul><li>Blurring of personal and professional identities online </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing need to manage issues of disclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Changing public expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Misunderstandings of digital spaces </li></ul><ul><li>Consequence </li></ul><ul><li>Permanence </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of understanding of ownership and licencing in online environments </li></ul>
    10. 10. Intellectual property rights (IPR) <ul><li>There are four main types of IP rights ( www.ipo.gov.uk ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patents protect what makes things work (e.g. engine parts, chemical formulas) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trade marks are signs (like words and logos) that distinguish goods and services in the marketplace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Designs protect the appearance of a product/logo, from the shape of an aeroplane to a fashion item </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright is an automatic right which applies when the work is expressed (fixed, written or recorded) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright arises automatically when an original idea (author uses some judgment or skill) is expressed/created </li></ul></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    11. 11. Copyright owners <ul><li>The owner of the copyright is the person (or persons, if jointly owned) who created/expressed the work </li></ul><ul><li>A copyright owner has economic and moral rights </li></ul><ul><li>Economic rights cover copyright owner acts, including rights to copy the work, distribute (e.g. making it available on-line), rent, lend, perform, show, or adapt it </li></ul><ul><li>Owners can waive, assign, licence or sell the ownership of their economic rights </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Moral rights can be waived (but not licensed or assigned) and include the right to ( www.cla.co.uk ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Be identified as the author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deny a work (that an author did not create) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Object to derogatory treatment of the work </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    12. 12. Using licenced works <ul><li>A licence (a set of rules) describes how copyright items may be used by others </li></ul><ul><li>Licensing schemes (such as Creative Commons) that both authors (owners) and users can access for free </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If both sides observe the rules then both parties are instantly protected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Owners licence others to use their content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users obey the terms of the licence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative Commons provides different licences that can be combined together </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policies can be developed to guide owners what licences to use </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    13. 13. www.medev.ac.uk Creative Commons: creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
    14. 14. Policies, disclaimers and risk <ul><li>In order to safeguard yourself against litigation for copyright or data protection (consent) violation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Have a policy/disclaimer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clearly publish your policy and keep it up to date </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train your staff in the use of the policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Follow your policy (do what you say you will do) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>You may also want a disclaimer ‘ this resource has been provided… use it at your own risk. If you have any concerns about any material appearing in this resource… ’ </li></ul><ul><li>Actively manage your risks </li></ul><ul><li>Take out liability insurance </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    15. 15. www.medev.ac.uk October 2010 cc: by-sa 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.
    16. 16. Consent as distinct from IPR <ul><li>Defined by the principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998 </li></ul><ul><li>Recognises the need for more sophisticated management of consent for recordings of people (stills, videos, audios, 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 ’ (branded items) </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 in healthcare settings ( sensitive personal data) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GMC guidelines for consent/patient recordings </li></ul></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    17. 18. Proposing a “Consent Commons” <ul><li>A human subject version of Creative Commons </li></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><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><li>Has levels of release (e.g. Closed; ‘medic restrict’; review [date]; fully open) </li></ul><ul><li>Terms of the consent needs to be stored with/near the resource </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    18. 19. Engendering trust Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource 
    19. 20. Institutional policy recommendations <ul><li>That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences e.g. CC ‘ by ’ (attribution only) </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>Include disclaimers in resources </li></ul><ul><li>UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the potential for re-using upstream copyrights </li></ul><ul><li>Have sophisticated ‘take-down’policies </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    20. 23. Attribution and disclaimer <ul><li>This file is made available under a Creative Commons attribution share alike licence </li></ul><ul><li>To attribute author/s please include the phrase “cc: by-sa Megan Quentin-Baxter and Suzanne Hardy, June 2011, http://www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/ “ </li></ul><ul><li>Users are free to link to, reuse and remix this material under the terms of the licence which stipulates that any derivatives must bear the same terms. Anyone with any concerns about the way in which any material appearing here has been linked to, used or remixed from elsewhere, please contact the author who will make reasonable endeavour to take down the original files within 10 working days. </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    21. 24. Breakout/workshop <ul><li>Are we/students already ‘digital professionals’? </li></ul><ul><li>Is there a need for a ‘consent commons’? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it reasonable to assume that we should consent everything if it is to be made ‘OER’? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How should we manage a person’s right to withdraw consent? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What is missing (do we need to consider/do)? </li></ul>
    22. 25. What tools, mechanisms and architecture are available?
    23. 26. “ most learners are still strongly led by tutors and course practices: tutor skills and confidence with technology are therefore critical to learners' development ” Beetham et al, 2009
    24. 28. www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer
    25. 30. www.nottingham.ac.uk /xpert /
    26. 31. www.google.co.uk/
    27. 32. www.jorum.ac.uk
    28. 33. University of Warwick Anatomy collection as part of their iTunes U presence deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/warwick.ac.uk.1885881473.01885881478.1882421734?i=2066269580 Give credit where credit is due
    29. 34. Reflection
    30. 35. http://medicalimages.pbworks.com
    31. 36. Principles <ul><li>1. Acknowledge that patients’ interests and rights are paramount. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Respect the rights to privacy and dignity of other people who are included in recordings, such as family members and health care workers. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Respect the rights of those who own the recordings and the intellectual property of those recordings, and check and comply with the licences for use. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Take professional responsibility for your making and use of recordings and alert colleagues to their legal and ethical responsibilities where appropriate. </li></ul>Email: [email_address]
    32. 38. 23thingswarwick.blogspot.com/p/programme-outline.html
    33. 39. Manage risk by adopting good practice <ul><li>Know how to find appropriately licenced content </li></ul><ul><li>Use the most openly licenced content wherever possible </li></ul><ul><li>Attribute 3 rd party material </li></ul><ul><li>Explicitly attribute your own work with disclaimer and licence as openly as possible </li></ul><ul><li>Pass on good practice to peers and students </li></ul>
    34. 40. Mitigating risk by adopting good practice to save time and money OER is irrelevant (but a nice by-product  )
    35. 41. www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ [email_address] [email_address] www.medev.ac.uk/blog/oer-phase-2-blog/
    36. 42. Attribution and disclaimer <ul><li>This file is made available under a Creative Commons attribution share alike licence </li></ul><ul><li>To attribute author/s please include the phrase “cc: by-sa Megan Quentin-Baxter and Suzanne Hardy, June 2011, http://www.medev.ac.uk /ourwork/oer/ “ </li></ul><ul><li>Users are free to link to, reuse and remix this material under the terms of the licence which stipulates that any derivatives must bear the same terms. Anyone with any concerns about the way in which any material appearing here has been linked to, used or remixed from elsewhere, please contact the author who will make reasonable endeavour to take down the original files within 10 working days. </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    37. 43. References <ul><li>Beetham, H., L. McGill, et al. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning Literacies for the Digital Age. Glasgow, Glasgow Caledonian University/JISC. Online at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidareportjune2009.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Chretien, K. C., S. R. Greysen, et al. (2009). &quot;Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students.&quot; JAMA 302(12): pp1309-1315. </li></ul><ul><li>Ellaway, R. (2010). &quot;eMedical Teacher # 38: Digital Professionalism.&quot; Medical Teacher 32(8): pp705–707. </li></ul><ul><li>Farnan, J. M., J. A. M. Paro, et al. (2009). &quot;The Relationship Status of Digital Media and Professionalism: It ’ s Complicated &quot; Academic Medicine 84(11): pp1479-1481. </li></ul><ul><li>Ferdig, R. E., K. Dawson, et al. (2008). &quot;Medical students ’ and residents ’ use of online social networking tools: Implications for teaching professionalism in medical education.&quot; First Monday 13(9). Online at http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2161/2026 </li></ul><ul><li>Thompson, L. A., K. Dawson, et al. (2008). &quot;The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism.&quot; J Gen Intern Med 23(7): p954-957. </li></ul><ul><li>Mostaghimi,A., Crotty, B.H., “ Professionalism in the digital age ” Annals of Internal Medicine 19 Apr 2011;154(8):560-562. </li></ul>
    38. 44. <ul><li>The Higher Education Academy OER pages: www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/teachingandlearning/oer/ </li></ul><ul><li>The JISC OER pages: www.jisc.ac.uk/oer </li></ul><ul><li>The OER InfoKit from JISC InfoNet: openeducationalresources.pbworks.com </li></ul><ul><li>The OER Synthesis and Evaluation Report: www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/oer/ </li></ul><ul><li>The JISC Legal IPR Toolkit: www.web2rights.com/OERIPRSupport/index.html </li></ul>References
    39. 45. <ul><li>http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/xpert/attribution/ </li></ul><ul><li>http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm </li></ul><ul><li>http://oerwiki.iiep-unesco.org/index.php?title=UNESCO_OER_Toolkit </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.creativecommons.org </li></ul><ul><li>http://wylio.com/ </li></ul><ul><li>http://openattribute.com </li></ul>References
    40. 46. openeducationalresources.pbworks.com/ www.elearningreadiness.org/ stemoer.pbworks.com/w/page/6799480/User-Guide-to-OER www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=415115&c=1 blogs.unbc.ca/open/2011/02/03/finding-and-using-open-educational-resources/ www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/ http://stemoer.pbworks.com/w/page/40417233/Release-Checklist
    41. 47. URLs <ul><li>www.medev.ac.uk /ourwork/ oer </li></ul><ul><li>www.nottingham.ac.uk / xpert / </li></ul><ul><li>http :// creativecommons.org / </li></ul><ul><li>www.jorum.ac.uk / </li></ul><ul><li>www.flickr.com /search/advanced/ </li></ul><ul><li>www.google.com / advanced_image_search / </li></ul><ul><li>www.nottingham.ac.uk / xerte / </li></ul><ul><li>www.glomaker.org / </li></ul><ul><li>http ://openlearn.open.ac.uk / </li></ul>