Sha e learning_leads_dec_2010


Published on

Presentation given at Strategic Health Authority eLearning Leads meeitng in London, December 2010.

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
  • 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 background is a huge recent investment in the UK in Open Educational Resources. A one year project we were involved in 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 ( 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.
  • JW Then SH Here is the problem. OERs move across clinical and academic settings. The same person might be making and delivering materials. They may be, or the recordings used within them are collected by clinicians under rigorous guidance both at a national (GMC) level and a local trust of health authority level. When these materials are then delivered in an educational event in an academic setting things can go awry. This slide illustrates one of the things that is special to our project and other healthcare projects: Where we have clinicians who are paid by the NHS, who create materials in clinical settings, but deliver them in academic settings under an honorary contract with the university but who are not paid by that university Where then does risk and responsibility lie? Enlarging on this a bit further, what we have on the left is a very clear process for taking cosent for using recordings within a clinical setting for treatment, research and ‘ local ’ education. On the right however, we then wish to re-use images and incorporate them into VLEs, share materials, etc. But no evidence of consent, we don ’ t have access to the patient record. And so the location of risk is unclear. What we do know is that both the clinical organisation and the academic organisation both want to do what is right. It is not clear where the responsibilities of the clinical setting end – what happens once images left their patch? On the other side, universities are beginning to be aware of their responsibilities but have no mechanisms to handle them But all want to do the right thing. Mobilty of image around the world and the fact that resources are being shared whether they were intended to be shared or not Universties are not aware of their responsibilities in this setting Doctors want to do it properly Universities want to do it properly No mechanism is currently in place to support them doing that
  • Malcolm Teague from the NHS-HE forum, is helping us with questions of access, authentication and authorisation across N3 and JANET.
  • 3 scenarios Full live cross search – fits in with ACErep project in Leeds Metadata exchange, search from entry website, only have to negotiate N3 gateway if need to download materials. Content package exchange – have everything in Jorum accessible from eLearning Repository and vice versa. No need to negotiate gateway.
  • 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..
  • One of the conditions of the funding was that we release everything under CC licenses. One of the main 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 licensing. The copyright part deals with ownership – Creative Commons deals with the licensing part, making explicit to users which they can do with the resource and under what circumstances. You always retain IPR. Creative Commons is the licensing regime we were required to apply, but its not the only one. There are others. CC has a range of licenses 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 license – 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 Thinking about licensing is something we should be thinking about with all of our resources whether they are going into an open repository or not. If they are being uploaded into a VLE, or if you are distributing them by email, it is likely they are being reshared via email, social networking etc.Making the use of the material and understanding what can and can ’t be done with a resource is therefore essential to all of us. CC makes it easy.
  • What we need is something that works alongside copyright and licensing regimens to give us something to evidence or give provenance to materials which required consent under data protection law, so that onward transmission sharing and reuse becomes easier, and we can open up more healthcare materials to use as OERs. Consent is a currently a barrier to open release as legacy materials can ’t evidence the consent status of clinical recordings – so we end up with non-commerical no-derivatives licenses as a default rather than a fallback position, where we can apply them. Everyone wants to use more open licenses but needs to be able to evidence consent.
  • 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.
  • SH We would like to propose a consent commons to work alongside or with creative commons as a way of demonstrating due diligence in dealing with issues of consent and using patient data sensitively in learning and teaching with specific reference to being able to share.
  • Organising Open Educational Resources had 17 HEIs as partners, who carried out 12 workpackages. 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. It was about enabling the community. To facilitate HEIs and individuals ‘go open’ by mitigating risk and implementing policies and procedures based on good practice. Part of that is preparedness to engage with the debate, and readiness of content to be released openly. Today I am going to go right back to basics. 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.
  • 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…..
  • Sha e learning_leads_dec_2010

    1. 1. Pathways for Open Resource Sharing through Convergence in Healthcare Education (PORSCHE) Seamless access to academic and clinical elearning resources contact: #porscheoer #ukoer #medev cc: by Tony the Misfit
    2. 2. Background £5.7+£4=£9.7 millions
    3. 3. Sharing openly is good <ul><li>50% </li></ul><ul><li>Public money </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Equality of access </li></ul><ul><li>Increased utility </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in applications </li></ul>
    4. 4. One of the benefits of being explicitly ‘open’ is that it removes the need for people to ask before re-using stuff. Without it, everything boils down to ‘am I allowed to do this?’ type question and many forms of re-use will stop at that hurdle because the costs of getting the answer are too great Andy Powell comment on David Wiley’s blog
    5. 5. Clinical setting Academic setting <ul><li>Doctor collects consent </li></ul><ul><li>Recordings taken </li></ul><ul><li>Consent for recordings stored with patient record </li></ul><ul><li>Clear guidance available </li></ul><ul><li>Recordings incorporated into educational event </li></ul><ul><li>Uploaded to VLE </li></ul><ul><li>No evidence of consent </li></ul><ul><li>No access to patient record </li></ul><ul><li>Location of risk unclear </li></ul>We all want to do the right thing!
    6. 6. NHS/HEI <ul><li>NHSNet/N3 </li></ul><ul><li>Athens </li></ul><ul><li>Limited access </li></ul><ul><li>JANET </li></ul><ul><li>Shibboleth/JISC FAM </li></ul><ul><li>Unlimited access </li></ul>
    7. 7. 3
    8. 8. © Suzanne Hardy OER 
    9. 9.
    10. 10. © 
    11. 11. Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear, and store consent with resource 
    12. 12. consent commons Consent Commons ameliorates uncertainty about the status of educational resources depicting people, and protects institutions from legal risk by developing robust and sophisticated policies and promoting best practice in managing information.
    13. 13. OOER contact: #ukoer #ooer #medev <ul><li>Guidance and toolkits for institutional policy, consent, copyright and IPR, quality and pedagogy. </li></ul><ul><li>2000 resources uploaded to </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations included: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors ‘ hallmark ’ all content (whether to be made open or not) with CC licences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consent everything (even where ownership and patient/non-patient rights appear clear) and store copies of consent with resource </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review institutional policies against good practice risk-assessment tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UK HE enter into dialogue with publishers to increase potential for third party upstream rights (especially images, music and video) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish staff reward system (for recognition of sharing & reusing resources, PDRs, promotion criteria, etc.) </li></ul></ul>organising open educational resources
    14. 14. Accredited Clinical Teaching Open Resources (ACTOR) Partners: University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, Hull York Medical School, Newcastle University, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry. Contact: #ukoer #actor #medev cc: by-nc By Maxi Walton
    15. 15. Help!
    16. 16. [email_address]
    17. 17. Mitigating risk by adopting good practice to save time and money OER is irrelevant (but a nice by-product  )