Document

Download Report

Transcript Document

Learning to love ‘open’

Megan Quentin-Baxter Professor of TELT

5 November 2014

FACULTY OF HEALTH

#ausoer14

Learning to love ‘open’

– Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter, Professor of Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching (since June 2014).

– Previously Professor of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University (UK). Worked closely with the Higher Education Academy, Jisc, Leadership Foundation, and the UK Research Councils. – SCORE Fellow. Led major ‘open’ projects in the UK e.g. OOER; PORSCHE; ACTOR; PublishOER; ‘Professional & Statutory (Regulatory) Body/Subject Associations’; FRRIICT; 'OER International’;

iridium

and Co-Curate Northeast. Co-chaired OER14, Newcastle, April 2014.

– Loving living in Tasmania  .

Open academic practice

– The “

most important legacies that [open] will leave are improving teaching and encouraging institutions to develop distinctive missions

” John Daniel, (2012) Making Sense of MOOCs http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2012-18/pdf All URLs accessed Oct 30, 2014

University of Tasmania

– Founding member of OERu – “Opening UTAS to the world would serve four key purposes: – promote the UTAS reputation and brand in areas of specialisation and research expertise; – grow enrolments in UTAS delivered courses; – contribute to areas of social and community need; and – enhance curriculum offerings. – In meeting these four purposes, a range of our learning and teaching resources can be used, from individual resources (i.e. learning objects) through to modules, units and ultimately fully creditable courses.” University of Tasmania TELT White Paper 2013

University of Tasmania

– Provide open access to first year material for a unit (the full 13 weeks) in each of a range of our key Faculty of Health courses (Pharmacy, Medicine, Psychology, BMedRes, Paramedicine) – The material needs to be IP compliant – It needs to be searchable from the web – It needs to be sustainable and maintainable – The usage needs to be evaluated and linked to enrolment and progression/ retention data Justin Walls, Associate Dean

University of Tasmania

– Student engagement and support – enhancing the student learning environment – Rethinking the process of learning/pedagogy (andragogy) – Educating educators to facilitate learning – Promoting co-creation and co-curation – Development of professional (employability) skills – Promoting transparency – Capitalising on new opportunities in research – Developing new business models – Managing risk – Developing leaders

Image ©Higher Education Academy, used with consent cc-by

Learning to love ‘open’

Justifications for OEP and OER have included: – Openly sharing the product of public funding. – Royalty-free texts and journals.

– Simplifying licensing of resources for authors and educators.

– Packaging and indexing educational materials so they are easier to find and use.

– Nurturing online communities of authors and educators. – Growing ‘open education’ as a field and a movement.

Learning to love ‘open’

– Some evidence has shown that students given access to course materials in advance learn in less time and to a higher standard Lovett, M., Meyer, O., Thille, C. (2008). The Open Learning Initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics Course in Accelerating Student Learning. JIME http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2008-14/352

Disruptive technology

– Academic papers – open publishing:

publicly funded research ‘free at the point of use’

– Open access to publicly funded research data – Open educational resources (OER) – MOOCs and open courses – OpenCourseWare, EdX, Coursera, Udacity, FutureLearn, OERu, etc.

– Social networking

Consumer ‘pull’ rather than course push

Jack Andraka

©National Geographic, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/10/teen-genius-develops-cancer-test/

Disruptive technology

– “

Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.

” Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Sugata Mitra, Professor of Educational Technology (image ©Newcastle University, used with permission and consent

Intellectual property rights (IPR)

What rights does a copyright owner have? – A copyright owner has economic and moral rights – Economic rights cover copyright owner acts, including copy the work, distribute (e.g. making it available on-line), rent, lend, perform, show, or adapt it – Owners can waive, assign,

licence

or sell their economic rights – Moral rights can be waived, but not licensed or assigned, and include the right to: – Be identified as the author – Deny a work (that an author did not create) – Object to derogatory treatment of the work ©Newcastle University 2010 CC-BY

Intellectual property rights (IPR)

Using licensed works: – A licence (a set of rules) describes how copyright materials may be used by others – Licensing schemes such as Creative Commons that both authors (owners) and users can access without royalty – Creative Commons provides different licences that can be combined together – Owners licence others to use their content – Users obey the terms of the licence – If both sides observe the rules then both parties are instantly protected from copyright infringement ©Newcastle University 2010 CC-BY

WWW.MEDEV.AC.UK

Creative Commons: creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

Consent

©2002 Transportation Security Administration, image of Dr Susan Hallowell, Director, Research Lab, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba ckscatter_X-ray accessed Sept 2012. All rights reserved. Used with permission. Consent obtained, and fully reserved (

anyone wishing to use this please obtain consent

Consent

– Gaining consent from someone participating in the development of an educational resource is slightly different to copyright permission (although it may overlap with IP 'moral rights'). – Copyright is an automatic right, consent lies with the 13 principles of the Privacy Act (1988). – The Act requires that we obtain consent to process personal data, and explicit consent to process sensitive personal data.

#DURBBU 9 JAN 2013

Risk management

– If resources can be copied digitally then the author should assume that they are ‘open’ whether licensed or not.

– Risk management is about balancing the

possibility

against the

probability

of being sued.

– There is no such thing as ‘anonymising’ patient or other human-derived information.

– Good practice exists already and is made up of: adoption of appropriate policies (rules); and developing processes for embedding the principles /policies via role modeling, staff development, negotiation, etc.

– Institutional policy and practice – where systems are in place they are too complex to work in practice.

3 2 Good practice compliance table (managing risk) Explanation

Institutional policies are clearly in place to enable resources to pass stringent ‘permission’ and ‘consent’ checks.

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.

Risk of litigation from infringement of IPR/copyright or patient consent rights

Low. Institution follows best practice and has effective take down strategies. Institution able to legally pursue those infringing the institution’s rights. 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.

Action

Periodically test resources against policies to keep policies under review. Keep abreast of media stories.

Limited liability insurance required.

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 0

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.

Compliance with good practice unknown/untested. Compliance has been tested and materials failed to pass.

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.

High/Unknown. Risk may be minimal if resource was developed based on best practice principles. Institutional policy status (ownership, consent) is unknown.

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

. Establish a task force to test some resources against institutional policies.

Take out liability insurance.

PublishOER

– Benefits-led approaches increase flexibility such as mash-ups and social networking while authors/publishers receive fair compensation – Investigate policy principles – teaching and OER – Develop case studies to test policy principles – Develop a technology to support principles – permissions requests (knows about the requester) – APIs to publishers content (browse and search across titles) – New ways to pay

Content

Veterinary - small enough market sector to test approaches Social media interfaces Support from the commissioning editor Image: ©2009 Mosby/Elsevier (all rights reserved, used with permission) To purchase: http://amzn.to/I5jH2t

Outputs from Student App Development

Mashing up content - student app

http://www.medev.ac.uk/blog/oer-phase-3-blog/

Permissions system (prototype) – access with social sign-on: http://www.medev.ac.uk/publish_oer/

Mashup ©2012 Newcastle University James Outterside Image ©Saunders all rights reserved used with permission Acknowledgement to Alison, Andy and Pat Lockley, University of Nottingham, Xpert project, for the built-in licence concept

“Can we establish a national licence, principles or rules for third party content to be used in OERs?”

– Every third party resource on a case by case basis – Permission sought for every use and re-use – Up to ten original or 'derived' things (e.g. images) per teaching resource for any purpose, including openly licensed – including if they are transformed in some way; annotated, cropped, coloured, videoed, etc. and text sections reproduced as a .jpg or .pdf

– Possibly not royalty-free – Downgraded quality of images/text/sound – Full attribution given to sources marked with their own license including 'all rights reserved’ – Notification of publishing of any embedded works as OER – Possibly for a time-limited duration – Low ‘transaction cost’ and easy to use; built-in stats gathering

Essential basics

– Establish a ‘notice and take down’ policy – Include, where appropriate, disclaimers in files – Include how to reference the work in future e.g. ©2014 University of Tasmania, Megan Quentin-Baxter – Cover permission or consent for – – – Copyright Performance rights Human involvement in teaching materials (patients or not) – If you have permission or consent say so!

Business models

– Path-finding ‘curricula’ among all the free content out there and supporting learners through to completion – Crowdsourcing and new presentations of knowledge – Reducing time for/cost of learning and reusing curricula – Managing academic reward – Targeting CPD/employers on how to capitalise on open courses – Conducting market research on learners/new business models

In the future

– Should every institution seek to share their learning resources? – Should we all use the content provided by MIT/others and simply accredit it? – Could the cost of, say, a medical degree, be reduced by accrediting open learning as part of (or prior to) the course? – Can we justify the price of our courses for supporting the 'process' of learning? – What is the role of ‘commercial providers’ – they have the copyright on the best content – can they cherry-pick?

Attribution/disclaimer

– This file is made available under a Creative Commons attribution license, except any third party materials identified ‘rights reserved’. Users are free to link to, reuse and remix this. – To attribute please include the phrase “©2014, University of Tasmania, cc:by http://www.utas.edu.au/copyright-statement/ ”.

– The University accepts no risks or liability arising from the use or reuse of this material. – Anyone with any concerns about the way in which any material appearing here has been linked to, used or remixed from elsewhere, or people portrayed, please contact us and we will make all reasonable endeavour to take down the original files within 10 working days. See the full policy at http://www.utas.edu.au/info/legal/takedown.html

Document

Transcript Document

Learning to love ‘open’

Learning to love ‘open’

Open academic practice

University of Tasmania

University of Tasmania

University of Tasmania

Learning to love ‘open’

Learning to love ‘open’

Disruptive technology

Jack Andraka

Disruptive technology

Intellectual property rights (IPR)

Intellectual property rights (IPR)

Consent

Consent

Risk management

PublishOER

Content

Outputs from Student App Development

Essential basics

Business models

In the future

Attribution/disclaimer

Further Reading

Directory