Going Open: the implications of adopting an open access policy in a

learning object repository

Map Image from the University of Texas at Austin

http://trustdr.ulster.ac.uk/

Distributed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution 2.5 UK: ScotlandAuthors John Casey, Jackie Proven, David Dripps

http://www.jorum.ac.uk/

• Brand Reputation and Reach (e.g. MIT)• Fashionable• They give us money?• Part of a process change in Teaching (Team)• Efficiency - find, reuse, adapt materials• Quality - Helps concentrate on teaching not content• Reduction in transactions costs (finding, rights, risk,

managing, sustainable)

Why Open?

• Our stuff is worth a lot• Really?• Where do you think the value is?• Some Educational Fundamentals• Ramsden’s 3 step model of teaching

– Content delivery

– Organising Student Activity

– Reflective Practitioner

• Content as a raw material• Where’s the value now?• Value is in the process - not the things or stuff….

Objection - The Value Argument

• Sharing to Support Process Change• Process Change?• Teaching as the Single Largest Source of Income• Changing the Teaching Model (to team)• Flexible Delivery (time, space, pace, content)• Online teaching Skills• New Design Skills• New Socio/Tech/Info/Media Skills (for teachers…& students!)• Moving e-learning on from its current position

Implications

• E-Learning/Flexible learning best understood as part of a changing model of teaching:– From individual to team teaching– From ‘my course’ to ‘our course’– From ‘my stuff’ to ‘our stuff’– Greater reuse and sharing of materials – with centralised

support and direction– More time spent in the design phase to improve quality and

efficiency– Contested visions? You Bet!– Hegemony of technology? (a sign)

• Tail wagging the dog?

E-learning as Process Change #1

E-learning as Process Change #2

Future Practice(sustainable)

Current Practice(subsistence)

Really About Process Change - think of IPR as an enabler

• Unrealistic expectations regarding the use of digital learning materials and technology– The e-learning ‘industry’ (both public and private) have to keep

a constant buzz of excitement going in order to continue receiving funding - be sceptical….

– Educational reality (both problems and solutions) is often more simple than some of the tech evangelists would have us believe….

– In the long term concentrate on educational fundamentals - it will give you an edge…if you are interested in results and evidence (Twigg, Biggs,Ramsden). Involve educationalists.

Tip - Watch Out For

NAH!

IPR Acts as a ‘lightening conductor’ to bring to the surface many difficult issues:

– ownership

– power

– control

– Status

Only a problem if you let it

Signifies deeper problems!

Goes to the heart of things!

But IPR is THE PROBLEM!

Image by Christopher Hollishttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightning_strike_in_Tampa_Florida_(modified).jpg

• Confusion, lack of awareness, poor practice, contradictory policy and risk aversion currently dominate thinking about this subject at all levels –

particularly amongst senior management

• There is a need for clarity and leadership in this area

The Current IPR Landscape in Education

Attitudes to IPR in Education #1

Picture By Stavros Markopoulos @ http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=447602329&size=o

Attitudes to IPR in Education #2

Picture By moose.boy / Moose G. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=47422069&size=m

• The TrustDR Approach– Understand your ‘business of e-learning’ and

develop appropriate IPR solutions– Developed proposals that are situated in the

practical context of implementing a flexible curriculum using e-learning

– Important to be able to understand and identify what is really valuable in ‘your business’ (people? stuff? process? brand?)

The TrustDR Approach - use it!

• Where IPR really is important to the underlying business model then IPR policy effectively reflects the ‘political economy’ of that activity. – Thus, the distance learning sector has a relatively mature and

clear IPR regime that is suited to the processes, needs and priorities of those institutions

• In contrast the mainstream education sector has a confused and contradictory IPR regime – despite the fact that teaching is the largest singe source of

institutional wealth.

• The current IPR regime represents a traditional model of teaching – individual, relatively isolated from peers, low levels of sharing

and reuse, a lack of involvement from senior management. It also represents pre-digital attitudes to publishing

Uncovering the Political Economy of E-Learning

• IPR Policy as an Enabler:– A clear IPR policy should support change in the teaching model by

encouraging academics to share their materials with others

– Academics and their institutions are accountable for their actions (and non-actions) in publishing digital materials – part of their continuing journey of accountability to society.

– IPR legal compliance in the creation of learning materials needs to be viewed as an essential part of academic integrity and institutional quality control

– Developing a clear IPR policy should enable a revaluation of the teaching and learning model, what is valuable, the direction of change to be pursued and the role of materials in the teaching and learning process

Turning the IPR Problem Around

•IPR & DRM gets easier if you:– Understand your business– Know where the value is– Are clear about what you are trying to do– Adopt a ‘systems’ approach to e-learning

•If you can’t prove your rights or ownership then no amount of technology will help

– simple record keeping, administration, policy and procedures are the foundation of successful DRM in any sphere

– Linked to a clear expression of your rights this might be enough

– Accurate & sufficient metadata is key - it’s a human thing!

Use Policy to Simplify the ‘Problem Space’

• No technical panaceas – automated DRM solutions are only suitable for simple and

frequent transactions these are not the sort of characteristics of a learning object reuse lifecycle

• It is an Institutional Info. management problem– A policy thing, so needs senior manager involvement and drive– Needs the involvement of info management specialists - don’t

leave it to the techies!– Don’t leave it to the commercialisation office etc - they have the

wrong IPR regime– Be realistic about the value of your materials (yes really!)– Be as clear as possible about what you are trying to achieve

Tips

• If you are paying for materials to be created– Know that the public sector has a poor track record in this field– Learn important lessons from the distance learning sector– Think about going for an assignment of copyright or think very carefully

about the licences you are willing to agree with contributors– Require delivery of all ‘high-definition’ and editable files to support future

reuse– Use a standard contract and proforma for suppliers and use standard

assignments/licences, contracts etc for inward and onward distribution, see British Columbia Commons in Canada

– Require the production of tutor/user notes and a clear pedagogic rationale and plan (aka ID or LD)

– Use a standard set of evaluation tools including peer and user reviews– Require the use of a standard set of information management tools and

procedures– Publicly funded materials should be publicly available - use an open licence

and repository model– Do not give any money until the contract is specified and they have agreed

to the above….if they don’t agree go elsewhere.

Tips - $$$$$ Commissioning Work $$$$$

• Develop policy, guidelines, toolkits and support materials– Make sure they are used - see BC Commons

– Clarify your policy - refer to the TrustDR Policy discussion document

– No apparent communal memory in this area - this needs to change - otherwise Groundhog Day

Tips - Commissioning Work - National Dimensions

Attempts to implement e-learning are revealing underlying problems in structure and and culture – e-learning as a reification agent (Pollock & Cornford, 2000)

Much of what is assumed and taken for granted is incorrect (UK e-U)

These technologies carry a strong organisational and pedagogical model - to use them you have to change (Freisen, 2004)

E-learning will be ineffective without the necessary changes in the structure of institutions and changes to working practices, needs top-down action

Main obstacles are philosophical, pedagogical, political, and organisational - the technical issues are comparatively minor

Current concentration on technical issues is a ‘displacement activity’

Tradition, dominant groups and vested interests delay and obstruct new knowledge (Kuhn, 1996)

Some Critical Observations About E-learning

References, Guides & Provenances

van der Klink, M., & Jochems, W. (2004) Management and organisation of integrated e-learning in Integrated E-Learning: implications for pedagogy, technology and organisation, Jochems, W., van Merriënboer, J., and Koper, R., Routledge & Falmer, London,

Pollock, N. & Cornford, J. 2000. Theory and Practice of the Virtual University: report on UK universities use of new technologies. In ARIADNE issue 24. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/virtual-universities/

Twigg, C (2005) Keynote Summary: Improving Learning and Reducing Costs - New Models for Online Learning in the ALT-C 2005 conference, ALT-C, UK. http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2005/keynotes.html#carol

Twigg, C. (2002) Improving Quality & Reducing Costs, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Goodyear, P., et al (2001) Effective Networked Learning in Higher Education: Notes and Guidelines, by The Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology Lancaster University Commissioned by JISC and available at http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/guidelines.htm

Friesen, N. (2004) Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-Learning Standards. In McGreal, R. (Ed.) Online Education Using Learning Objects. London: Routledge. Pp. 59-70. Draft version online at: http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html

Ramsden, P. 1991. Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching. London: Routledge.

Casey, J., Wilson, P., 2006, A Practical Guide to Providing Flexible Learning in Further and Higher Education, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Scotland Committee, Glasgow, 2006 (in print - due to be published Spring 2006)

Kuhn, T. 1996 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press.

Casey, J. (2004) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in networked e-learning: a beginners guide for content developers. JISC Legal Information. Available at http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/publications/johncasey_1.htm [Accessed 14.04.06]

 

Casey, J. and MacAlpine, M. (2002) Writing and Using Re-useable Educational Materials: a beginners guide, CETIS Educational Content Special Interest group {Online} www.cetis.ac.uk/educational-content

References, Guides & Provenances

PicturesOstrich:

Ostrich Photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=447602329&size=o

By Stavros Markopoulos

http://www.flickr.com/people/markop/

Rights to to use - Under an Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Licence More at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

Donkey:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=47422069&size=m

By moose.boy / Moose G.

http://www.flickr.com/people/alces/

Rights to to use - Under an Attribution 2.0 Generic Licence

Licence terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

References, Guides & Provenances

Map of Samoa from the University of Texas at Austin collection of maps – free to use and adapt

Lightening Image by Christopher Hollis under a CC ‘BY’ licencehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightning_strike_in_Tampa_Florida_(modified).jpg

Clip Art from Microsoft Word

All other images by the TrustDR Project

References, Guides & Provenances