Home > ACErep, MeDev OOER > What can we learn from MEDEV OOER project?

What can we learn from MEDEV OOER project?

As someone who is unfamiliar with many of the specific issues around medical teaching and learning resources, it was very useful to meet with Suzanne Hardy, the project manager for the MEDEV OOER project, yesterday who gave me a synopsis of recommendations from her project that may very well have a bearing on ACErep – full report available from the website.

The Organising Open Educational Resources (OOER) project set out to:

  • Build on existing practice and partnerships by establishing a collaboration for sharing all necessary information and processes to enable institutions to implement OER strategies
  • Share/upload existing content (notionally ‘360 credits’) to a national repository under patient and non-patient consent, Creative Commons (CC)[1] licences and institutional policy ‘best practice’
  • Identify issues and barriers to sharing and reuse of existing e-learning resources within the disciplines
  • Explore particular issues surrounding informed patient consent, particularly for use of clinical recordings
  • Address issues resonating with all UK educational provision which include elements of work or practice-based learning, where staff contracts for teaching may be complicated by their employment and inter-agency education commissioning arrangements

The project proposal was on behalf of a wide range of partners in the UK and funded under the Subject Strand of the JISC Open Educational Resources programme, managed by the Higher Education Academy.  There is already significant activity in the area of sharing resources in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine; OOER aimed to open up the process to a wider constituency and encourage sharing more openly, as well as reveal existing good practice in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine in UK HE.

In common with all OER projects the partner institutions were required to deposit content to JorumOpen and there was a desire to have a single location where details of OER can be accessed; this is in contrast, perhaps, to our own Unicycle project which has duplicated OERs in JorumOpen and our local repository with the implicit assumption that they have been “released into the wild” and can be downloaded, disaggregated, reused and re-aggregated without an easily traceable audit trail.  Such an approach, however, may not be appropriate for medical teaching and learning resources in “relation to audit trails, take down policies and risk mitigation as they apply to patient data specifically.”

I am not certain how these issues will apply to the resources produced by the ALPS CETL but they certainly need considering and are likely to have a bearing on the openness of our approach – especially if we are to consider using JorumOpen (see last post) which, in its current form, the OOER project team felt lacked sufficient facility to “provide back tracking data in the event of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from a patient or their family for them to be confident in making copies of resources, and thus having to duplicate effort when material had to be changed or taken down.”  The report goes on to give recent examples where this has been necessary including NHS guidelines on hospital hygiene (sitting on beds, handwashing) and swine flu in both human and animal healthcare education.

Also emphasised in the report was the fact that, in addition to fully open CC licensed content, Jorum currently also supports JorumEducationUK (for content sharing where creators and owners need to restrict the availability of resources to members of UK Further and Higher Education institutions, authenticated via the Access Management Federation), but that the third licensing regime JorumPlus (for sharing content with additional restrictions, for example where material licensed via JISC Collections or from third parties is involved)  does not seem to have materialised (see http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/open-educational-resources-programme-start-up-meeting-what-i-learned/).  A more restricted licensing option was seen as essential where there are sensitive materials, or materials should not be disaggregated due to context specificity and the risk of misappropriation (e.g. obs and gynae or genito-urinary medicine related materials).

OOER have, in fact, been exploring an alternative repository that may be more suited to the requirements of their users; MedEdPORTAL “is a free online peer-reviewed publication service provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in partnership with the American Dental Education Association (ADEA)”…”designed to promote educational collaboration by facilitating the open exchange of peer-reviewed teaching resources such as tutorials, virtual patients, simulation cases, lab guides, videos, podcasts, assessment tools, etc”… “it is open and available for free to the general public.”  One of the interesting features of this resource is that all submissions undergo formal peer-review which was seen by OOER as meeting the expectations of their specific constituency. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop international users submitting resources though they must be registered and the submission process, as you might expect, is not trivial:

See also the MedEdPORTAL Submission Form and Instructions

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. June 24, 2010 at 11:35 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: