1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,190 2 00:00:04,190 --> 00:00:08,850 Hi – I’m Norman Bier, from Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative. 3 00:00:08,850 --> 00:00:12,260 Open educational resources have demonstrated exceptional potential 4 00:00:12,260 --> 00:00:16,660 in the classroom for supporting learners and educators alike. 5 00:00:16,660 --> 00:00:19,620 I’m here to talk with you about something slightly different – 6 00:00:19,620 --> 00:00:24,350 a secret, OER superpower at the institutional level: 7 00:00:24,350 --> 00:00:29,160 sidestepping the Gordian’s Knot of a University IP policy. 8 00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:32,720 Universities’ Intellectual Property policies are rarely things drafted 9 00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:37,940 in a timely, cohesive way; often they grow organically, the work of faculty, 10 00:00:37,940 --> 00:00:42,960 administration and OGC committees as they interpret existing standards 11 00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:45,140 and attempt to address changes a landscape, 12 00:00:45,140 --> 00:00:49,700 with each group attempting to protect their own interests – this means IP 13 00:00:49,700 --> 00:00:54,190 policies are well known for being byzantine, convoluted legal documents, 14 00:00:54,190 --> 00:00:58,420 often behind-the-times for addressing current approaches and challenges. 15 00:00:58,420 --> 00:01:02,200 This was really brought home to me recently as colleagues and I attempted 16 00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:07,190 to award some internal seed grants for educational innovation – we literally 17 00:01:07,190 --> 00:01:10,690 ended up needing to create a flowchart that we could trace out for each grant 18 00:01:10,690 --> 00:01:12,500 – were federal funds involved? 19 00:01:12,500 --> 00:01:14,030 If so, which agency? 20 00:01:14,030 --> 00:01:17,740 If NSF funding, was the funding before or after the Baye/Dole act? 21 00:01:17,740 --> 00:01:20,140 Were university resources used? 22 00:01:20,140 --> 00:01:21,770 Was such use substantial? 23 00:01:21,770 --> 00:01:25,700 If substantial CMU resources were used, did the university make a claim 24 00:01:25,700 --> 00:01:28,590 on the IP at the time of award…and so on. 25 00:01:28,590 --> 00:01:33,590 And CMU isn’t known for having a particularly nasty IP policy – quite 26 00:01:33,590 --> 00:01:37,990 the opposite, its considered to be a pretty fair policy for faculty. 27 00:01:37,990 --> 00:01:41,930 Most IP policies were designed to cover new inventions and technologies that 28 00:01:41,930 --> 00:01:44,280 were developed at the institution, with a goal 29 00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:46,670 of ensuring that both faculty and the institution 30 00:01:46,670 --> 00:01:49,170 had a fair stake in any research outputs. 31 00:01:49,170 --> 00:01:52,780 And they are often overlaid with an equally complex set of traditions, 32 00:01:52,780 --> 00:01:55,160 processes and informal understandings. 33 00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:59,470 One of these relates to any educational materials that an educator made on her 34 00:01:59,470 --> 00:02:03,090 own time were covered by traditional rights – the notes, slides, 35 00:02:03,090 --> 00:02:06,620 assessments and assignments that educators made remained their own, 36 00:02:06,620 --> 00:02:11,300 and up until recently this was a fairly straightforward state of affairs. 37 00:02:11,300 --> 00:02:17,020 New educational innovations have made this process a little more complicated 38 00:02:17,020 --> 00:02:21,110 – at the Open Learning Initiative, faculty are working to develop 39 00:02:21,110 --> 00:02:24,900 comprehensive and fairly complex learning environments and courseware – 40 00:02:24,900 --> 00:02:29,580 developing this courseware requires substantial commitments not just from 41 00:02:29,580 --> 00:02:34,700 faculty, but from a development team that includes instructional designers, 42 00:02:34,700 --> 00:02:38,980 technologists, visual designers, learning engineers, project managers, 43 00:02:38,980 --> 00:02:41,410 psychometricians and learning scientists. 44 00:02:41,410 --> 00:02:45,430 Supporting this effort is a larger infrastructure – tools and technology 45 00:02:45,430 --> 00:02:48,340 for delivering the courseware, supporting learnings and instructors 46 00:02:48,340 --> 00:02:51,910 and iteratively improving on the materials as time goes by. 47 00:02:51,910 --> 00:02:55,790 While faculty are clearly bringing expertise and creating materials 48 00:02:55,790 --> 00:02:58,680 of the type associated with traditional rights, 49 00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:02,260 the end courseware is truly a collaborative product – and one made 50 00:03:02,260 --> 00:03:06,110 with a substantial investment on the part of CMU in the form of the OLI team 51 00:03:06,110 --> 00:03:07,160 and infrastructure. 52 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:09,230 Who owns this work? 53 00:03:09,230 --> 00:03:14,340 At many institutions, the challenge of “online courseware” was solved 54 00:03:14,340 --> 00:03:19,810 by specifically paying faculty (often adjuncts) to develop online materials, 55 00:03:19,810 --> 00:03:24,850 with a contract that explicitly assigned all IP ownership to the institution – 56 00:03:24,850 --> 00:03:28,090 this ensures that the university can continue to use the materials, 57 00:03:28,090 --> 00:03:31,610 but dramatically limits what faculty can do with the materials, 58 00:03:31,610 --> 00:03:34,790 especially if they teach at a different institution. 59 00:03:34,790 --> 00:03:40,750 But full IP ownership on the part of faculty is also problematic – 60 00:03:40,750 --> 00:03:45,190 institutions making investments into developing these kinds of educational 61 00:03:45,190 --> 00:03:49,610 resources want to guarantee that their students will have ongoing access 62 00:03:49,610 --> 00:03:50,590 the work. 63 00:03:50,590 --> 00:03:56,810 And OLI’s approach often means multiple faculty are involved in initial 64 00:03:56,810 --> 00:04:02,070 and ongoing development, which further complicates the question of ownership. 65 00:04:02,070 --> 00:04:10,170 But ideally these materials can be used and improved upon over multiple course 66 00:04:10,170 --> 00:04:14,620 offerings, with use, contributions and improvements by many parties over 67 00:04:14,620 --> 00:04:19,540 iterative cycles – who owns the work? 68 00:04:19,540 --> 00:04:20,709 Who is allowed to change it? 69 00:04:20,709 --> 00:04:23,240 Who can give permission for others to use or change it? 70 00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:27,200 To complicate things even further, OLI, like some other open education efforts, 71 00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:30,130 has also begun to incorporate student-generated content into some 72 00:04:30,130 --> 00:04:35,460 of our courses – student IP rights add another dimension to an already complex 73 00:04:35,460 --> 00:04:37,340 landscape. 74 00:04:37,340 --> 00:04:41,760 This isn’t a hypothetical question – over the past 4 months we’ve seen 3 new 75 00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:44,390 course development efforts at CMU that combine faculty effort ; 76 00:04:44,390 --> 00:04:48,380 materials with substantial investment on the part of the University; 77 00:04:48,380 --> 00:04:53,480 occasional contributions from students; and a host of open questions: 78 00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:55,340 Who owns this final work? 79 00:04:55,340 --> 00:04:57,470 How can we ensure that faculty authors can 80 00:04:57,470 --> 00:05:02,350 continue to use the courseware, no matter their position or institution? 81 00:05:02,350 --> 00:05:04,130 How can we ensure that the university can 82 00:05:04,130 --> 00:05:08,280 continue to benefit from these materials and guarantee access 83 00:05:08,280 --> 00:05:10,850 to future students and faculty? 84 00:05:10,850 --> 00:05:14,330 How can we ensure that future grant teams can extend, modify and improve 85 00:05:14,330 --> 00:05:15,590 upon this work? 86 00:05:15,590 --> 00:05:20,020 How can we leverage the work in future research and grant submissions? 87 00:05:20,020 --> 00:05:24,070 One option is to create some types of special, non-exclusive use licenses 88 00:05:24,070 --> 00:05:26,750 that ensure all parties have continued access. 89 00:05:26,750 --> 00:05:29,830 But such licenses are frequently one-offs, 90 00:05:29,830 --> 00:05:33,310 requiring special considerations, and opening the door 91 00:05:33,310 --> 00:05:36,340 to extensive, sometimes adversarial negotiations. 92 00:05:36,340 --> 00:05:40,320 Drafting these agreements often takes longer 93 00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:43,830 than developing the courseware itself, and frequently creates 94 00:05:43,830 --> 00:05:47,480 a set of legal complexities that make subsequent use and modification 95 00:05:47,480 --> 00:05:48,710 challenging. 96 00:05:48,710 --> 00:05:53,530 But in the end, most of these parties are less concerned with who OWNS the IP 97 00:05:53,530 --> 00:05:56,110 than what they can do with the course materials – 98 00:05:56,110 --> 00:05:56,610 Concerns 99 00:05:56,610 --> 00:05:58,550 Educators concerns: 100 00:05:58,550 --> 00:06:01,290 Appropriate credit for their work 101 00:06:01,290 --> 00:06:04,110 Ability to use materials that they’ve authored 102 00:06:04,110 --> 00:06:09,730 Portability of resources to use at multiple institutions 103 00:06:09,730 --> 00:06:12,920 Potential for easy, ongoing collaborations 104 00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:15,550 Institutional concerns: 105 00:06:15,550 --> 00:06:18,770 Full benefit of investment into courseware 106 00:06:18,770 --> 00:06:22,840 Ensure student access to materials over the long term 107 00:06:22,840 --> 00:06:28,140 Position materials for future development and improvement 108 00:06:28,140 --> 00:06:31,900 OGC/OSP concerns: 109 00:06:31,900 --> 00:06:36,270 Clarity in rights for future grants and other uses 110 00:06:36,270 --> 00:06:41,270 Simplicity in access and use across faculty and institutions 111 00:06:41,270 --> 00:06:47,610 Enter the creative commons license –when the primary driver of concerns is less 112 00:06:47,610 --> 00:06:50,800 about ownership and more about ongoing use and access, 113 00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:54,480 open licensing offers an exceptionally straightforward to address 114 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:58,280 the immediate needs of all parties, and to accommodate future concerns. 115 00:06:58,280 --> 00:07:02,180 The educators that I’ve worked with have quickly seen the immediate benefit 116 00:07:02,180 --> 00:07:06,410 of licensing these materials as OER, even when they are less concerned with 117 00:07:06,410 --> 00:07:09,640 the larger agenda and benefits of open education. 118 00:07:09,640 --> 00:07:13,480 And I’m fortunate that after a decade and a half of working with the Open 119 00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:18,400 Learning Initiative, our OGC and OSP teams have gained some experience with, 120 00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:21,280 and trust in, creative commons licensing. 121 00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:27,340 We frequently positon the 5R’s as being of central benefit to learners 122 00:07:27,340 --> 00:07:29,130 or to classroom instructors. 123 00:07:29,130 --> 00:07:33,940 But the ability to Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix and Redistribute 124 00:07:33,940 --> 00:07:38,630 are of equal concern to institutions – to administrators, to legal teams, 125 00:07:38,630 --> 00:07:42,460 to our course development teams and to the faculty that engage with them. 126 00:07:42,460 --> 00:07:48,000 OER can simplify otherwise-complicated questions of use and ownership 127 00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:51,300 in ways that get at the concerns of all parties. 128 00:07:51,300 --> 00:07:54,440 And cutting through red tape , simplifying the lives of you 129 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,970 and your colleagues, all while supporting the greater good via 130 00:07:57,970 --> 00:07:59,380 contributions to the commons? 131 00:07:59,380 --> 00:08:00,930 That really is a super power. 132 00:08:00,930 --> 00:08:04,440 133 00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:08,440 A quick note for those of you watching this as part of the EdX Open Education 134 00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:11,790 MOOC – there’s been some fabulous research that suggests that watching 135 00:08:11,790 --> 00:08:15,640 videos like this one are one of the worst ways for you to learn – it’s much 136 00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:19,630 more effective for you to engage in richer, learn-by-doing activities. 137 00:08:19,630 --> 00:08:25,170 Hopefully the Siemens/Wiley team have some great have some great activities 138 00:08:25,170 --> 00:08:29,670 lined up, but in case they don’t: I have some home work for you: 139 00:08:29,670 --> 00:08:33,240 Look up your institutions’ IP policies and thing about some of the questions 140 00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:34,429 I’ve raised: 141 00:08:34,429 --> 00:08:37,299 Are traditional rights still being protected? 142 00:08:37,299 --> 00:08:39,860 How do online materials factor in? 143 00:08:39,860 --> 00:08:43,750 Is your institution making investments in building better course materials? 144 00:08:43,750 --> 00:08:48,410 How are faculty being assured the right to continued use of the resources they 145 00:08:48,410 --> 00:08:49,070 author? 146 00:08:49,070 --> 00:08:52,640 How is your institution ensuring learners and educators can 147 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:55,360 make continued use of these resources? 148 00:08:55,360 --> 00:08:58,670 What might happen if multiple educators and development 149 00:08:58,670 --> 00:09:01,770 teams want to expand and improve upon materials, especially 150 00:09:01,770 --> 00:09:04,060 over an extended period of time? 151 00:09:04,060 --> 00:09:09,250 And perhaps most importantly: how can an open approach simplify these concerns 152 00:09:09,250 --> 00:09:14,210 at your institution while making a contribution to the larger commons? 153 00:09:14,210 --> 00:09:16,930 Hope you’ve found this interesting – questions? 154 00:09:16,930 --> 00:09:18,080 Comments? 155 00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:23,760 Howls of disbelief & derision? let me know on twitter: @normanbier 156 00:09:23,760 --> 00:09:27,610