OOER JISC10 April 2010


Published on

This is the presentation given during the OER slot at the JISC10 conference in April 2010 at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London.

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
  • The Subject Centre is based at Newcastle University and one of 24 of the Academy’s Subject Centres, each in a different HEI with a portfolio of disciplines to support. Celebrating 10 years of such support.
  • One of 13 Subject Strand projects and focused on releasing a substantial amount of resources in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, postgraduate and staff development through testing their OER readiness against a series of good practice toolkits. Challenges to Subject Strand projects are working across many institutions – Guidance needs to be generic/tailorable to multiple institutional contexts (e.g. institutional policies; internal structure of the organisation may vary; etc.) There may be subject specific elements (fieldwork; how teachers approach finding resources to use in teaching; etc.) Teachers may be employed by non-HEI employer (e.g. work based learning; health care settings; working with professional and regulatory bodies; clinical honorary contracts) Potential for multiple resources on the same topic (e.g. handwashing video) Many different opinions about how we could succeed with the project Subject centre staff are not employed by the contributors – have to be careful within the project
  • Set out to build on existing practice and partnerships – standing on the shoulders of giants - to establish a collaboration for sharing all necessary information and processes to: Enable institutions to implement OER strategies as the default (rather than as an add-on); Share/upload existing content to a national repository under patient and non patient consent, creative commons license and institutional policy ‘best practice’. Attempted to be realistic and avoid duplication. And in fact when were were putting the bid together it was argued strongly at the time that all the necessary technology, legal and policy information (know-how) was already available; others that considerable effort would be required to apply and understand these in the context of a multi-HEI collaboration with the added complexity of protecting and quality assuring healthcare ER, including NHS staff contributions. Executive board had representation from all partners who tested and refined toolkits, contributed resources, completed surveys ad infinitum and wrote up case studies. They were also key in developing strategy and decision making. OOER concentrated on issues relating to consent, securing educational resources from staff delivering programmes who are non-HEI employed (e.g. placement learning / employers) .
  • The process was centred around an iterative improvement cycle where the use of toolkits would highlight issues in ‘going OER’; and case studies would document these, 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.
  • Results of mapping and OER readiness categorisation together with development of simple toolkits (to help HEIs, Subjects and Individuals) informed identification of ER to be included Uploading OER tested toolkits Bid, project reports and outputs (including case studies and toolkits) can be downloaded from www.medev.ac.uk/oer
  • Toolkits are being refined even as we speak – we have two colleagues in an apartment about 15 minutes from here who are working on them, via a series of meetings with project partners taking place this week from Monday – Thursday. So the information I am telling you about their status right now is probably already out of date…. Toolkits available so far (all feedback gratefully received!): IPR and copyright Consent (patient and non patient) Institutional policy and procedure - available but very draft form See www.medev.ac.uk/oer Ready soon: Quality and pedagogy Resource discovery and reuse Metadata and API Sustainability analysis Impact on existing projects/collaborations – senior manager briefing paper The tool will have links out to existing good practice such as Web3rights and Strategic Content Alliance guidance as well as links to case studies, guidance documentation and checklists It tracks progress and allows bookmarking Works alongside a database created to collect metadata about potential resources and an API mashup.
  • Regulatory bodies acknowledgement of educational uses of recordings GMC patient consent guidance (revised) Jane Williams, our patient consent partner leading WP3, had been contracted by the JISC to update a previous piece of work on using clinical recordings in non-clinical (academic) settings. CHERRI2 was well underway, bilding on CHERRI which aimed to deliver a review of consent issues and processes and other procedures relating to the secure deposit, sharing and reuse of clinical materials in teaching, research and other educational activities. It drew on on exemplar policies and procedures and informed by further consultation the project will deliver best practice recommendations, workflows, and information and technical procedures for managing these processes in a scalable fashion. Just at the time we were beginning to look at WP3, the GMC had a public consultation out relating to the revision of the 2008 guidance on patient consent. Several project partners responded. Jane informed the GMC that we had this project and that as part of the CHERRI revision, there was a forthcoming meeting in London. The meeting happened to be on the same day as a GMC ethics committee meeting, but despite this 2 of the authors of the guidance attended the meeting in November which was about using and reusing clinical recordings in non-clinical i.e academic settings. Subsequently we were invited to the GMC EU eVIP: embedded IPR process in 12 EU HEIs Sector impact Already working with over 50% of UK schools of medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine In discussions with the NHS eLearning Repository, which has some CC licensed content Working across the programme Interesting themes have emerged and some interesting new partnerships developing particularly in the area of reward and recognition for staff sharing and publishing their resources. Subject strand projects working with institutional projects and trams at the Academy who administer the UK PSF and accredit postgraduate programmes in learning and teaching as well as the individual fellowship routes. We very much hope that this work will mean that there will be some formal recognition for staff getting involved in OER.
  • 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..
  • Unexpected outcomes Pros and cons documentation –like a tug o war in some HEIs. As I hinted at earlier this came out of the case study collection process when we were approaching the next layer of staff who maybe weren’t as convinced as the ones we had banging on our door before the call came out. Pros ‘ Going open’ would be popular with some individual teachers, middle or senior managers Individual staff are making their materials available on the internet already (you tube, iTunesU, flickr, etc.) Institutions can establish policies and procedures through sharing good practice The University retains ‘ownership’ and materials are ‘licensed’ for others to use Sharing the results of the public purse Making materials more accessible for our own (and other) students Exposure to new markets – students, collaborators, public Accessing materials from other institutions Having a back up/single place where materials are searchable/stored/available from Whole Programmes/Modules right down to individual images could be made ‘open’ You can make materials available from staff and students, and find out who is using your stuff One place from which to access video, images, podcasts, etc. You can upload materials from staff, students There is funding available to be involved now (through the OER programme) Cons Other teachers, middle and senior managers may have a different (collective or otherwise) view Not all staff would want to be involved – some might actively reject having their materials ‘open’ There is work involved, HR and potentially e.g. trade unions. Maybe it is better to not ask the question It is not really clear to teachers what rights they have over materials that they create here Giving away the ‘crown jewels’ Making materials accessible to ‘third parties who might abuse/make money out of it Need to monitor ‘quality’ – branding means it should be of a particular standard Not likely to want to use others’ materials There needs to be some metadata Funding for Jorum Open might be cut without warning (e.g. Intute) Any non-owned stuff would have to be removed and replaced with a note of what had been there (e.g. images from texts) and the result might be useless You would have to get agreement of all parties, and maintain materials (if they go out of date) Maybe no one would use them, or they might be criticised by others If you are doing it anyway then there doesn’t seem any advantage of having to maintain materials in Jorum Open as well as e.g. iTunesU They might include something which does not conform to good practice e.g. GMC guidance; the institution may be sued It is not clear how the ‘cake’ will be cut or how resource flows to reward those with content We also developed a Value statement available from this URL which covers incentives from the literature such as Teaching resource quality Finance Diversity Institutional Student recruitment, satisfaction and retention Sustainability there are a couple of slides with references at the end of this presentation which will be going into Jorum Open and into SlideShare.
  • What the project and the going through the processes, policies and procedures has done is facilitate reflection. The feedback we have had from partners has been fantastically useful. Despite being bombarded with surveys and toolkits to test, and being asked to write up case studies, they have universally praised the process, saying that it has made them and their HEIs think really carefully about the issues involved in going OER. We hope that ours and other projects will lead to this reflective development cycle and look forward to the JISC infokit and associated case studies in helping us move forward to the vision we originally had for the future. Departmental Increased awareness of OER, open licensing and need for clear institutional process This presented us with some interesting challenges when we were encouraging other staff from partner institutions to get involved and we had to put together some unplanned documentation to sell the idea to them and some senior managers. We’ll come back to that in a minute. Institutional Policy development: Southampton – desire to move ahead but few policies to support it RVC Warwick – new group convened specifically to look at IPR as it relates to OER Newcastle – the OOER project is talking to many colleagues and awareness has been raised throughout the institution. We will be disseminating further internally over the next couple of months.
  • The future we all hope for is one where: Sharing resources becomes as ubiquitous as the teaching they support. Staff are rewarded and their commitment to sharing their own, and using and reusing others resources is a recognised formally in work plans, PDRs, and forms part of promotion criteria. Risks are carefully assessed and mitigated as far as possible in advance of any complaint. Patients families and carers are reassured that if they make a request for materials to be taken down, that their wishes are complied with in a timely fashion We would also like to see the development of a ping back system whereby if a resource goes out of date, the user of that resource gets a message telling them that it’s been removed from Jorum and that a newer version may be available – in much the same way as we all get software update notifications……
  • And of course all of our partners in the project for their dedication, enthusiasm and hard work. Not to mention putting up with usnagging them for a year….
  • OOER JISC10 April 2010

    1. 1. Organising Open Educational Resources: OOER Harnessing expertise and sharing good practice to promote change (Subject Strand) April 2010 London Suzanne Hardy Project Manager & MEDEV Senior Advisor Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter Project Director & MEDEV Director Newcastle University Conference 2010 www.medev.ac.uk
    2. 2. Subject strand projects www.medev.ac.uk
    3. 3. www.medev.ac.uk cc by-nc http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyowen/2176413267/
    4. 4. OOER: iterative improvement cycle www.medev.ac.uk
    5. 5. OOER: readiness categorisation pyramid www.medev.ac.uk
    6. 6. www.medev.ac.uk
    7. 7. www.medev.ac.uk
    8. 8. www.medev.ac.uk
    9. 9. www.medev.ac.uk
    10. 10. www.medev.ac.uk
    11. 11. OOER: toolkits <ul><li>Available to use from www.medev.ac.uk/oer </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    12. 12. Patient and non-patient consent <ul><li>We have found that we need to consent everything – even where provenance is clear </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patients, their carers/families, members of the public </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Care workers, receptionists, police </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role players, actors, students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifiable and non-identifiable materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishers’ materials </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Working with the GMC to revise their consent guidelines (used by all of healthcare) </li></ul><ul><li>Needs sophisticated take-down policies </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    13. 13. PIMPS* example cc by-sa www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7LjCJYHkso&feature=channel_page *Put in many places & syndicate www.medev.ac.uk
    14. 14. www.medev.ac.uk cc by-nc-sa http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertfrancis/100775342/ www.medev.ac.uk/oer/value.html
    15. 15. www.medev.ac.uk cc by-nc-sa http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_morris/3547443925/
    16. 16. www.medev.ac.uk cc by-nc-sa www.flickr.com/photos/stevencorrey/3727974438/
    17. 17. Acknowledgements: project partners www.medev.ac.uk
    18. 18. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Gillian Brown, Advisor (Education) </li></ul><ul><li>Victor Ottaway, Centre Manager </li></ul><ul><li>James Outterside, Advisor (Information) </li></ul><ul><li>Sharon Percy, Centre Secretary </li></ul><ul><li>Nigel Purcell, Senior Advisor (Education) </li></ul><ul><li>Chris Smith, Project Assistant </li></ul><ul><li>Vicky Thomas, Secretarial Assistant </li></ul><ul><li>Lindsay Wood, Project Officer </li></ul><ul><li>All the legal teams at partner HEIs </li></ul><ul><li>Programme staff at JISC and HEA </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis and evaluation team esp. Helen Beetham </li></ul>www.medev.ac.uk
    19. 19. Call: 0191 222 5888 Email: [email_address] [email_address] cc some rights reserved Stefan Baudy www.flickr.com/photos/-bast-/349497988/
    20. 20. OOER value statement: 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>www.medev.ac.uk
    21. 21. References <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