The comments on the episode are very interesting, too.
CUNY’s Office of Library Services is sponsoring an online workshop designed to provide an overview of Open Education Resources (OER) for CUNY faculty looking to integrate OER into their classes.
This class is made up of four modules, plus a final project. Each module is made up of readings, videos and discussions. Each workshop section will be comprised of no more than 20 participants in order to foster in intimate forum to share OER work and get feedback from colleagues and the facilitator. The goal is to finish the workshop with a better understanding of OER and also to come away with some work that can be immediately integrated into classes.
The workshops will be entirely on line and last for a two week period requiring approximately 10 hours of work. The activities and assignments can be completed on a flexible schedule during the time period. To be eligible for this workshop, applicants must be teaching faculty scheduled to teach in the spring 2015 semester. Department chair and Chief Academic Officer sign-off will be required. Faculty successfully completing the workshop will receive compensation of 10 hours at the non-teaching adjunct rate for participation.
Questions? Please contact: Ann Fiddler at Ann.Fiddler@cuny.edu or 646-664-8060
In May, Jill Cirasella, addressed the makers out there with her post, “Creating an OER? How Should You License It?” But before you license your OER, you have to build it. To do so, you will likely need to use another creator’s materials. Can you use extant materials, or does copyright always get in your way?
Consider this: if you plan to share your course widely as an OER, you can no longer count on a jointly-held library affiliation. Therefore, it is important to carefully vet the material you chose to include in your course for any potential copyright violations. It is also best to make sure that the materials you use are available publicly.
We have some tips that should protect you, while keeping your creative vision intact.
We’ve posted several times about Creative Commons (CC) licenses for content creators (Jill’s post) and (Creative Commons 4.0 for Education). These licenses help the content user/re-mixer as well. To use them, first consider how you plan to use the materials? Will you display an image, for example, or create derivatives of it? With use in mind, you can search for objects with the appropriate CC license. On Google Images, for example, you can search by license type (select appropriate Usage Rights from the Advanced Search page). Even better, Creative Commons offers a consolidated search at search.creativecommons.org; participating sites offer audio, video and image files. When using others’ materials, attribution is always the name of the game, so be sure to give credit where credit is due.
If you need readings for your OER, consider open access (OA) publications. You can find them at the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or OpenDOAR, a directory of open access repositories. Because these materials are OA, they can be used by faculty or students regardless of library affiliation. What’s more, you needn’t post the objects themselves in your OER; it is often sufficient to link to them.
You can also make use of the doctrine of Fair Use. Fair Use is an exception to copyright law that protects the rights of content consumers within certain parameters. As the consumer/re-user, it is up to you to carefully analyze your use of the material, in order to determine if it is Fair Use. While there is no magic formula for this analysis, we recommend this step-by-step worksheet from the University of Minnesota. Here too, attribution is a must.
Are you are planning to create your own OER? Consider this opportunity.
For more copyright resources, see the (C)opyright at CUNY page.
Open vs. traditional textbooks
Open educational resources (OER) can save students hundreds of dollars, but are they equal in quality to high priced textbooks from traditional publishers? If a book is free, will it have undergone to the same academic or editorial review as a high priced textbook? Increasingly, the answer is yes. There are many new resources and tools designed to help faculty find high quality, peer reviewed OER.
Do you get what you pay for?
One question to consider: Do traditional textbook publishers truly produce a superior product? Publishers argue that high textbook prices are necessary to cover their costs for peer review, editorial development, and top quality production values. However, new editions frequently come out with even higher prices but with very little new content to justify the higher cost. Traditional publishers are driven by the bottom line and many new editions are produced simply in order to generate sales. Instead of buying a used copy at a substantial discount, a student buys the “new” edition at full price and the publisher reaps the profit.
Open Educational Resources can be a great alternative to high priced textbooks. Read this CNN article for a great overview of new developments and how free resources really can work in the classroom. But do free resources really meet the same quality standards as traditional textbooks? Yes! Many of them are peer reviewed and carefully developed by educators. The OER Commons includes a new tool which allows educators to rate the quality of OER with seven rubrics. Check out this video for a tour of the tool and the rubrics.
MERLOT II includes over 4,000 in-depth peer reviews and allows users to search for materials with peer reviews, editor reviews, and user ratings. Other sites such as College Open Textbooks include lists of peer reviews divided by subject area.
Where to find peer reviewed OERs
Our round-up posts will feature a smattering of recent items that relate to Open Educational Resources. Please tell us if you’ve come across other items worth sharing in the comments!
New OER Projects:
- Open Policy Network: The mission of the Open Policy Network is to foster the creation, adoption and implementation of open policies and practices that advance the public good by supporting open policy advocates, organizations and policy makers, connecting open policy opportunities with assistance, and sharing open policy information. Check out their upcoming Institute for Open Leadership (applications for Cohort 1 are due June 30!).
Recent Publications on OER Topics:
- Mitchell, Carmen and Melanie Chu. “Open Education Resources: The New Paradigm in Academic Libraries.” Journal of Library Innovation 5.1 (2014).
- Schwarts, Katrina. “Why Aren’t More Schools Using Free, Open Tools?” Mind/Shift.
- Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology, Issue 4: Publication and its Discontents
- June 9-10, 2014: OER Annotation Summit / #oeranno: This meeting is one of a series planned to explore opportunities and barriers to fostering greater collaboration in solving shared technology challenges for open education (OER) projects. This particular meeting will focus on annotation and metadata challenges and solutions for OER, especially with an eye toward integrating tools that allow for more distributed and participatory mark-up.
- July 25-27, 2014: OpenEdJam / @openedjam / #OEJ14: a 3-day international event that brings together activists, developers, educators, engineers, librarians, and makers from all fields.
- November 15-17, 2014: OPENCON / @open_con: Student and Early Career Researcher Conference on Open Access, Open Education and Open Data.
- Fall 2014: Open Knowledge: Changing the Global Course of Learning Open source, open science, open data, open access, open education, open learning — this course provides an introduction to the important concept of openness from a variety of perspectives, including education, publishing, librarianship, economics, politics, and more, and asks you to discover what it means to you.
When educators write a traditional textbook, they generally have to sign their copyright over to the publisher. When they write an open access textbook or produce some other kind of open educational resource, there’s no need to sign away their copyright — the creators retain the right to copy, distribute, and re-use their works. (Unimpressed by those seemingly basic rights? Remember that when authors transfer their copyright to publishers, they often lose all rights to their work — after the transfer, they sometimes has no more rights to their work than you or I do.)
Of course, if all rights to a work were held only by the creator, others could not copy, share, or reuse the work. In other words, by definition, it couldn’t be an open educational resource. So, we want creators to retain their rights, but we also need them to grant some rights to others. And not just specific other people or companies — to everyone, to all potential users.
And that’s why the open access community loves Creative Commons (CC) licenses: They leave copyright with the creator but also grant some rights to others. Creative Commons licenses are not the only way to grant rights to a work, but they make it easy for creators to communicate which rights they do and don’t give to others, and they’ve emerged as the standard licensing tool for open access materials.
There are six Creative Commons licenses on the spectrum between traditional copyright and the public domain. They differ in their requirements regarding commercial uses and derivative works, and there are fascinating things to say about all of them. But I’m going to limit this post to two of the most commonly used licenses for OERs: CC BY (Attribution) and CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike):
- The CC BY license says that people can do whatever they want with the work — copy it, print it, distribute it, expand it, remix it, even sell it — provided that the creator is properly attributed.
- The CC BY-SA license is very similar but differs in one key way: It says that people can do whatever they want with the work provided that (1) the creator is properly attributed and (2) any resulting works are released with the same license. Because CC BY-SA requires that derivative works are also CC BY-SA, it is a “viral” license.
Which is better, CC BY or CC BY-SA? Major players in the open access arena have strong and different opinions.
Wikipedia uses CC BY-SA, explaining that [bold is mine]:
To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to the Projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, so long as that use is properly attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute is granted to any derivative works. In keeping with our goal of providing free information to the widest possible audience, we require that when necessary all submitted content be licensed so that it is freely reusable by anyone who cares to access it.
The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), on the other hand, endorses CC BY, going so far as to disallow CC BY-SA among its members [bold mine]:
To fully realise that potential of open access to research literature, barriers to reuse need to be removed. . . .
The most liberal Creative Commons license is CC-BY, which allows for unrestricted reuse of content, subject only to the requirement that the source work is appropriately attributed. Other Creative Commons licenses allow for three possible restrictions to be imposed. . . . But the emerging consensus on the adoption of CC-BY reflects the fact that any of these restrictions needlessly limits the possible reuse of published research.
. . . while [Share-Alike] licenses can be extremely helpful in building up a collection of content, they also have downsides in terms of the limitations they place on reuse. For example, material distributed within a Share-Alike article could only be combined and redistributed with other share-alike content. In contrast, CC-BY content can be combined with any content, and redistributed according to the terms of that other content, as long as CC-BY’s own attribution requirement is respected. This makes CC-BY something like a Universal Donor blood-type in that it has maximal compatibility.
. . . OASPA includes, and will currently still admit, members who use the NC restriction (but not the SA or ND restrictions).
Let’s take a closer look at the question of which license is better:
- Which is better for readers? For those who just read/consume a work (and those who download, print, and share it), there’s no difference between the two licenses.
- Which is better for those who want to reuse/remix a work? It depends. CC BY is less restrictive, making reuse easier. But CC BY-SA ensures the openness and reusability of derivative works, and that stipulation arguably leads to reuses/remixes that are inherently better than if they weren’t open.
- Which is better for authors? It depends on the author’s priorities. CC BY facilitates reuse and broad impact, but some creators of open works want works derived from their works to be open as well.
- Which is better for openness? As we saw in the arguments from Wikipedia and OASPA, It depends on how you look at it. CC BY makes a given work more open, more reusable. But CC BY-SA fosters openness and builds the universe of open access materials. However, the share-alike stipulation might deter some potential reusers and prevent some reuses from ever happening. How should we think about a license that promotes openness in derivative works but likely prevents some derivative works from ever being made? It’s hard to say!
- Which do I personally think is better? Philosophically, I’m with Wikipedia and CC BY-SA. I love the idea of a snowball effect of openness. But in practice, I think OASPA has it right: For open access works to have the most impact and do the most good, we need to minimize barriers to reuse. And, when it comes down to it, I’m a practical person. So I (with somewhat conflicted feelings) side with CC BY.
- But you certainly don’t have to take my word for it! My smart and thoughtful colleague Alycia Sellie is more drawn to CC BY-SA. See her grapple with CC BY vs. CC BY-SA in an Open Access @ CUNY blog post from last summer.
One last note: Yes, I prefer some CC licenses to others. But I embrace all of them as improvements on traditional copyright for scholarly communication and educational publishing!
(This post was derived from a presentation I gave at WikiConference USA on May 31: Whose to Use? And Use As They Choose? Creative Commons Licenses in Wikipedia and Scholarly Publishing.)
Creative Commons plays a huge role in the world of OER. Merkley’s focus, for now, seems to be on making Creative Commons content more accessible. From The New York Times:
Still, one of the principal challenges for the organization is to keep tabs on its licensees, Mr. Merkley said. The 500 million total “is an estimate, not an actual number,” he said. “It is hard to track them.”
That technical problem, he said, speaks to a larger concern: how to organize Creative Commons content so that the public can easily find and use it in their own projects.
It’ll be interesting to see how Merkley’s outreach on behalf of Creative Commons translates to OER exposure.
The 2014 Brooklyn Core Conference featured some interesting conversations around Open Education Resources (OER):
Steven Ovadia provided an overview of OER, including definitions, uses, and how OER meet both student and faculty needs.
Maura Smale discussed ongoing CUNY OER initiatives, including City Tech’s open education precalculus textbook, and how to link to resources in library databases (which, while not strictly OER, are freely-available resources for students and faculty at CUNY).
Jane Palmquist of Brooklyn College’s Music department spoke about her online class that makes use of freely available material. The class is hosted here in the Commons, but right now, it’s only accessible to members of the CUNY Academic Commons.
Faculty continue to be interested in the idea of OER, but based on questions and conversations heard at the conference, the issue isn’t whether to proceed, so much as it’s how to. One of the easiest ways to get started is to take the short, self-paced OER101 class, which covers everything from navigating OER repositories to copyright to uploading your own content. OER isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s good to start slowly, maybe by transitioning a few assignments into something more open, and then expanding upon that gradually over a few semesters, until eventually, your costly textbook has been replaced by a customized, engaging, freely-accessible class.
"[Sometimes] it is a choice between whether they buy a book for class or they put food on the table for their family."
The Washington Post has a fascinating piece on "food insecurity" in college students.:
"A problem known as ‘food insecurity’ — a lack of nutritional food — is not typically associated with U.S. college students. But it is increasingly on the radar of administrators, who report seeing more hungry students, especially at schools that enroll a high percentage of youths who are from low-income families or are the first generation to attend college."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems food insecurity negatively impacts academic performance.
Open education resources don’t solve this problem, but they do make things easier for students faced with the choice between paying for college and eating.
For more information on food insecurity, including readings and lessons, check out an OER collection like MERLOT.
Jane Park from Creative Commons discusses their latest license.