Open Educational Resources (OER) World wide access to learning and teaching resources Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter Director, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine (MEDEV) Tel: +44 (0) 191 222 5888 megan@medev.ac.uk Suzanne Hardy MEDEV Senior Advisor and OOER Project Manager Newcastle University Tel: +44 (0) 191 222 5888 suzanne@medev.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk The Higher Education Academy • The Academy's mission is to help institutions, discipline groups and all staff to provide the best possible learning experience for their students – – – – – Informing policy (government, professional bodies, etc.) Supporting institutions (assessment, feedback, internationalisation, etc.) Research and evaluation (EvidenceNet, funded pedagogic projects, etc.) Supporting learning (sharing good practice, networking, enquiries, etc.) Professional development and recognition (including fellowship of the Academy and the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme) (staff development, accrediting teaching, reward and recognition, etc.) – Disciplines and networks (subject centres, sustainability, islamic studies) April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk www.heacademy.ac.uk www.heacademy.ac.uk April 2010 The Academy and its Subject Centres April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk The Academy and its Subject Centres April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine • Hosted by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne • Supporting 30,000+ staff and 110,000 students in the UK – Approximately 8 fte staff - director, manager, education adviser/s, information officers, clerical support – Approximately £500K turnover per centre per year – Subject based and themed activities (e.g. assessment) – Networks of ‘primary contacts’ and ‘subject specialist advisors’ – Information filtering/interpretation and brokerage – Journals, newsletters and eBulletins – Website: educational information & resources, news, etc. – Workshops, conferences, SIGs/COPs and other events – Stakeholder engagement, dissemination – Funding for small projects (mini-projects, small grants >130 since 2000) – Support for strategic initiatives / large projects, fund-raising April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk ©Megan Quentin-Baxter 2009 cc0 April 2010 Source: UCAS and funding council websites University / Community Higher and Further Education Higher Institutions /Further Education Education Institutions Institutions Northern Ireland Total 5 6 11 England 130 362 (123 directly funded) 492 Scotland 20 43 63 Wales 12 21 33 Total 167 432 April 2010 599 www.medev.ac.uk UK Universities and Further Education Colleges April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk openlearn.open.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Pros and cons of ‘going OER’ Pros Cons • Whole Programmes/Modules; individual documents; lectures; tests; images; etc. • Risk of infringing third party rights • Formalise current ‘ad hoc’ practice • Not all staff would want to be involved • Sharing the results of the public purse • Giving away the ‘crown jewels’ • Exposing University brand to new markets – students, partners, public • Quality could be good or bad (what if the content is poor quality or ‘wrong’?) • Anyone can contribute • How do you find good-quality stuff? • Materials are more accessible for our own (and other) students • • Institutions can establish and enforce high quality policies and procedures of ‘ownership’ and ‘licencing’ ‘Third parties’ might abuse the system/make money out of OER materials • Better not to open Pandora’s Box – better to remain in the dark and not know • Funding for JorumOpen might be cut without warning • A single place where materials are searchable/stored/available from April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk The HEFCE/JISC/Academy OER programme (14/08) • HEFCE funded programme (£5.7M), managed by the Academy and the Joint Infrastructure Committee (JISC) until April 2010 • OER could include full courses (programmes and modules), course descriptions, lectures, notes, videos, assessments, tests, simulations, worked examples, software, and any other tools or materials or techniques used in teaching – Make existing material available - not about creating new content – Resources released under an intellectual property license permitting open use and adaptation (e.g. Creative Commons) – Expose existing content to wider audiences and exploring the drivers, challenges and barriers and making recommendations – Projects mandated to deposit into national repository (JorumOpen) – End goal is sustainability April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk The HEFCE/JISC/HEA OER programme (14/08) • Pilot projects made up of 3 strands of activity: – Institutional (7 projects @~£250K each) – Individual (8 projects @~£20K each) – Subject (14 projects @~£250K each) 1. LLAS (Southampton), ENG (Royal Holloway), PRS (Leeds), HCA (Warwick): The HumBox project 2. ICS (Ulster): Open educational repository in support of computer science 3. Engineering (Loughborough): Open educational resources pilot 4. UKCME (Liverpool): CORE-Materials: collaborative open resource environment – for materials 5. Economics (Bristol): TRUE - Teaching Resources for Undergraduate Economics 6. Physical Sciences (Hull/Liverpool): Skills for scientists 7. GEES (Plymouth): C-change in GEES: Open licensing of climate change and sustainability resources in the geography, earth and environmental sciences April 2010 8. ADM (Brighton): Open Educational Resources in Art, Design and Media 9. MSOR (Nottingham Trent): FETLAR (Finding electronic teaching learning and assessment resources) 10. Bioscience (Leeds): An Interactive laboratory and fieldwork manual for the biosciences 11. UKCLE (Warwick): Simulation learning resources 12. HSaP (KCL): Public health open resources in the university sector (PHORUS) 13. C-SAP (Birmingham): Evaluating the practice of collective endeavour in opening up key resources for learning and teaching in the social sciences 14. MEDEV (Newcastle): Organising open educational resources (OOER) www.medev.ac.uk www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk OOER: iterative improvement cycle Institutional Policies Case Studies April 2010 Toolkits www.medev.ac.uk OOER: readiness categorisation pyramid April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Creative Commons: example April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Good practice compliance table (managing risk) Action Risk of litigation from Good Explanation practice compliance table (managing risk) infringement of IPR/copyright or patient consent rights 3 Institutional policies are clearly Low. Institution follows best practice in place to enable resources to and has effective take down be compared to the toolkits. 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. 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. www.medev.ac.uk Compliance has been tested and materials failed to pass. April 2010 April 2010 Used with permission ©CETL www.clinicalskillscentre.ac.uk www.medev.ac.uk http://www.clinicalskillscentre.ac.uk/ Website of materials recently (since 2005) purposemade/commissioned to good practice standards • • • • Strategy to produce and share educational resources Academics were supported by learning technologists Materials come from multiple institutions under an agreement What issues or policy implications exist? April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Website of materials recently (since 2005) purposemade/commissioned to good practice standards • • • • Strategy to produce and share educational resources Academics were supported by learning technologists Materials come from multiple institutions under an agreement What issues or policy implications exist? – Intellectual property rights of teachers; support staff including learning technologists, photographers/audio-visual/illustration staff; etc. – Third party or ‘upstream’ rights including material of mixed origin – Patients and non-patients such as role players; family members (including children); other healthcare workers including porters and receptionists; students; members of the public; etc. – Sub-contractors rights including technical, audio-visual staff; facilities/physical resources; data providers, etc. – Incidental product placement including brand names visible in videos – Materials may go out of date if clinical skills/guidelines are updated April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk www.medev.ac.uk/oer/value.html cc by-nc-sa http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertfrancis/100775342/ April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk ‘Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) with or without talking head • 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? April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk ‘Recap’ (like video) recording of a lecture (voice over powerpoint) with or without talking head • 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 April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 ©Newcastle University PsychiatryTeacher cc by-nc www.medev.ac.uk Video of doctor with patient or role player • Doctor is employed by National Health Service (NHS) and has agreed to participate • In this case it is a role player who is being paid to participate • What issues or policy implications exist? April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Video of doctor with patient or role player • Doctor is employed by National Health Service (NHS) and has agreed to participate • In this case it is a role player who is being paid to participate • What issues or policy implications exist? – If the audio-visual recorder is externally contracted then they will own the recording unless they have signed a contract agreeing to relinquish © – Real patient data is anonymised – but is it recognisable? – Doctor (or their family) may later change their mind and reasonably request that the clip is removed / taken down – Role player may not have consented for materials to appear on the web – actors’ unions can claim that this is reducing actor’s income April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk ©Megan Quentin-Baxter, 1995 cc0 With thanks to Dr Graham Irving April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Video of an academic with veterinary material (recently dead rat) recorded onto 1” film in 1988 • Signed ‘consent to participate’ - forms for all parties (including audio-visual staff) still available in hard copy • Video commissioned as part of a PhD study • What issues or policy implications exist? April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Video of an academic with veterinary material (recently dead rat) recorded onto 1” film in 1988 • Signed ‘consent to participate’ - forms for all parties (including audio-visual staff) still available in hard copy • Video commissioned as part of a PhD study • What issues or policy implications exist? – Produced by a student – not technically an employee – whose IPR? – Transferred from 1” film to MPG and onto the web – Developed at a previous (not current) employing institution - under which institution should the materials be released? – Age of materials – issues about format and quality – Techniques demonstrated may have been updated especially in response to animal welfare therefore video is no longer best practice – Possible response against the author from anti-vivisection community – Academic passed away about 6 months after this was recorded and never saw the final version April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Toolkits–asking necessary questions with links to sample policy documents/further information Start Identify content type Image/video/aud io? Y Y Patient data? N N Refer to WP3 workflow N Text? Y Refer to WP6 workflow Refer to WP5 workflow N Is the IPR status clear? Y Refer to WP2 workflow Sample policy documents Collect basic metadata about resource April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 • Available from www.medev.ac.uk/oer www.medev.ac.uk Resources identified for inclusion per site Case studies WP4 database Newcastle University ‘Resources’ identified for inclusion 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 2 (1) TBC 5 800 60 (19) ~2000 www.medev.ac.uk Keele University Non partner (e.g. other HEIs such as QMUL & City University; NHS eLearning Repository; commercial/charity) Total April 2010 April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk www.jorum.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Recommendations • That authors should ‘hallmark’ all their content with CC licences • Consent everything-even where ownership and patient/nonpatient 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.) • JorumOpen-specific recommendations such as bulk upload April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk 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 April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Acknowledgements: project partners • • • • • • • • • • Bedfordshire University Cardiff University Imperial College Keele University London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Newcastle University Queen’s University Belfast Royal Veterinary College St George’s University of London University of Aberdeen April 2010 • • • • • • • • University of Bristol University of Edinburgh University of Liverpool University of Nottingham University of Oxford University of Southampton University of Warwick Intute: Health and Life Sciences www.medev.ac.uk Acknowledgements • Gillian Brown, Advisor • Programme staff at JISC and HEA • Victor Ottaway, Centre Manager • Synthesis and evaluation team esp. Helen Beetham • James Outterside, Advisor • Content providers whose • Sharon Percy, Secretary material appears here • Nigel Purcell, Senior Advisor especially: • Chris Smith, Project Assistant – Dr Brian Lunn • Vicky Thomas, Secretarial – Dr Philip Bradley Assistant – Professor Annie Cushing • Lindsay Wood, Project Officer • All the legal teams at partner HEIs April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk 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.gmcuk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_index.asp April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk Expert panel • Suzanne Hardy, Senior Advisor, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine and Project Manager, Organising Open Educational Resources (OOER) • Chara Balasubramaniam, Project Manager, e-Learning Unit, Centre for Medical and Healthcare Education, St George's University of London (OOER IPR Lead) • Michael Begg, eLearning Manager, Learning Technology Section, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh (OOER OpenLabyrinth Lead) • Dr David Davies, Associate Professor, Institute of Clinical Education, University of Warwick (OOER Resource Discovery Lead) • Dr Jane Williams, Head of eLearning, Medical School, University of Bristol (OOER Patient and Non-patient Consent Lead) April 2010 www.medev.ac.uk