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

May 2010 cc: by-nc-sa

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

Dr Megan Quentin-BaxterDirector, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine (MEDEV) Suzanne HardyMEDEV Senior Advisor and OOER Project ManagerNewcastle University

www.medev.ac.uk


2

Subject strand projects

www.medev.ac.uk


3

Pros and cons of ‘going OER’ (values)• Formalise current ‘ad hoc’ practice• Sharing results of the public purse• Exposing University brand to new

markets – students, public, etc.• Anyone can contribute• Materials are more accessible for

our own (and other) students • Whole Programmes/Modules;

individual documents; lectures; tests; images; etc. clarifying ‘ownership’ and ‘licencing’

• Institutions can establish and enforce high quality policies

• A single place where materials are searchable/stored/available from

• Not all staff will participate• Giving away the ‘crown jewels’• Quality could be good or bad (content

= poor quality or ‘wrong’?)• How do you find good quality?• ‘Third parties’ might abuse the licence

and it would cost you to sue• Risk of infringing third party rights

• Better to remain in the dark – you don’t know WHAT you might find out

• Funding for JorumOpen might be stopped

www.medev.ac.uk


4

OOER: iterative improvement cycle

www.medev.ac.uk


5

www.medev.ac.uk

OOER: readiness categorisation pyramid


6

www.medev.ac.uk

Good practice compliance table (managing risk)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

Toolkits–asking necessary questions with links to sample policy documents/further information

www.medev.ac.uk

Y

Start

Identify content type

Image/video/audio?

Patient data?

Y Y

Text?

N

N

N

Refer to WP3 workflow



Is the IPR status clear?

Y

NRefer to WP6 workflow

Collect basic metadata about resource

Sample policy

documents


8

www.medev.ac.uk• Available from www.medev.ac.uk/oer


9

www.medev.ac.uk

cc by-nc-sa http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertfrancis/100775342/

www.medev.ac.uk/oer/value.html


10

‘Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) • All materials correctly attributed to publisher according to published

guidelines– Images have been altered (labels) to suit commentary – Images are ‘embedded’ (not easily copied and pasted)– Recording is lower quality than the original

• Currently running on an internal virtual learning environment (behind a login)

• What issues or policy implications exist?

www.medev.ac.uk


11

‘Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) • All materials correctly attributed to publisher according to published

guidelines– Images have been altered (labels) to suit commentary – Images are ‘embedded’ (not easily copied and pasted)– Recording is lower quality than the original

• Currently running on an internal virtual learning environment (behind a login)

• What issues or policy implications exist?– Rights of the publisher – images openly available; images ‘defaced’– Potential to raise the profile of the publisher – more people buy books?– Publisher may allow inclusion of materials in OER but we have to clear

rights

www.medev.ac.uk


12

Third party upstream rights and international collaboration• Reached agreement with one publisher (InstantAnatomy) to allow their

materials to be embedded in OER materials• OOER is negotiating with Elsevier, approached others such as Primal

Pictures and planning to approach e.g. Wiley Blackwell • MedEdPortal – agreement for metadata from MedEdPortal to go into

JorumOpen• 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

• What might be those terms?– Lower quality visuals? – Embedded – not able to be copied out?– Micropayments? How, where, when?

www.medev.ac.uk


13

Patient and non-patient consent• Recordings of people (stills, videos, audios, performances, etc.)

– Teachers (academics, clinicians, practice/work based learning tutors, etc.)– Students and ‘product placement’ – Role players/actors/performers/hired help (including recording crew)– Patients/patient families/care workers/support staff/members of public, etc.

(we are working with the GMC to review the guidelines for patient recordings)

• Consent Commons– A human subject version of Creative Commons– Accepts a basic human right to refuse their image/voice appearing and,

where they have previously consented, their right to withdraw their consent– Would work like Creative Commons in that you hallmark material with the

consent status and when consent needs to be reviewed (if ever)– Has levels of release (e.g. Closed; ‘medic restrict’; review[date]; fully open) – Terms of the consent needs to be stored with/near the resource


14

www.medev.ac.uk

‘Resources’ identified for inclusionResources 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

www.medev.ac.uk

www.jorum.ac.uk


16

Recommendations

• That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences• Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/non-patient

rights appear clear, and store consent with resource• Review institutional policies against good practice• Aim to release a fraction of a programme rather than 100%• UK HE enters a dialogue with publishers to increase the potential for re-

using upstream rights (especially images)• Have sophisticated ‘take-down’ policies• Development of a tool to track resources and for them to ‘phone home’

(like software updaters) to check their status• Staff reward system is established (formal recognition of using and

reusing others’ resources, PDRs, promotion criteria, etc.)• Several JorumOpen-specific recommendations such as bulk upload

www.medev.ac.uk


17

Setting the sceneSetting the scene

Academic Institution

LCMS

uses

uses

autonomous specialized educational modules

has/creates

cc: by-nc-sa

Graphics courtesy of Chara Balasubramiam

St George’s, University of London


18

Setting the sceneSetting the scene


LCMS



LCMS



LCMS


Inter-institution communication cannot always be effective

cc: by-nc-sa

Graphics courtesy of Chara Balasubramiam

St George’s, University of London


19

Product vs process

Module specification documents

Assessment

Feedback Student handbooks

LecturesWork based learning

Handouts

CAL

SeminarsPBL/groupwork

LibraryDiscussions

Student generated content

Hidden curriculum

Labwork

Tutorials

Videos

Podcasts

Animations

Reading lists

Social networking

BlogsWikis

Bookmarks

cc: by-nc-sa


20

Product vs process

www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/3213525752/ cc: by-nc-sa


21

Resource collections

cc: by-nc-sa


22

National repository

VLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLE VLE

Active staff involvement

Photo: Miroslav Vajdia http://11031.openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlikecc: by-nc-sa


23

VLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLEVLE VLE

RSS

• Exceptional aggregation services

• Semantic web• Linked data

Photo: Miroslav Vajdia http://11031.openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlikecc: by-nc-sa


24

PIMPS* example

*Put in many places & syndicate

www.medev.ac.uk/oercc: by-nc-sa


25

Diametric opposition?

Trackability Openness

More context More granularity

Context? Confidence? Time?

Formal peer review Star ratings/user comments

cc: by-nc-sa


26

Tribes

• Thematic or ‘underground’ groups– Small– Specialised– Distributed– Lack of trust– Loose CoP– Lack of confidence in product in development

www.medev.ac.uk


27

In conclusion

• The UK aims to be a major player in open educational resources– The JISC has issued a call for phase II of the OER programme with bids

due by 24 June 2010• Further work is needed on, for example:

– National repository vs. distributed content – Resource discovery and reuse and associated issues– Reputation and branding– Upstream rights– Materials going out of date, etc.

• Looking to collaborate (nationally and internationally)• We don’t know the long term implications of the programme

www.medev.ac.uk


28

Acknowledgements: project partners

www.medev.ac.uk


29

Acknowledgements

www.medev.ac.uk


30

References

• Li Yuan, Sheila MacNeil and Wilbert Kraan. Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education. JISC CETIS. 2009

• Catherine Fleming and Moira Massey. Jorum Open Educational Resources (OER) Report. 2007.

• Marshall S. Smith. Opening Education. Science. 89 ; 323. 2009.• Giving Knowledge for Free: the Emergence of Open Educational Resources.

OECD. 2007.• WM-Share Final Report. WM-Share. 2006.• 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

• CHERRI, Ellaway, R. et al http://www.cherri.mvm.ed.ac.uk/• GMC patient consent guidance

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_index.asp

www.medev.ac.uk


31

Call: 0191 222 5888Email: [email protected]

[email protected]: www.medev.ac.uk/oer/

cc some rights reserved Stefan Baudy www.flickr.com/photos/-bast-/349497988/

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

Education

policy implications exist

open educational resources

materials correctly attributed

lower quality

upstream rights

sharealike cc

published guidelines

creative commons