Web 2.0 & Social Media – Access in the NHS

I’ve blogged previously about connectivity issues in the NHS and the problems with accessing Web 2.0 and social media sites that can support teaching and learning. In one of these posts I mentioned the work that the NHS-HE Forum Connectivity Best Practice Working Group, which I’m a member of.  This group has been pulling together and sharing case studies of good and best practice around IT connectivity in the NHS, which locally have certainly helped us make progress in Tayside.  My contribution to the working group has been to write a paper on Web 2.0 and social media in relation to education and research and this was published last week following the most recent NHS-HE Foum meeting held in London on 14th May 2013.

I had originally hoped to have the paper finalised before Christmas, however the delay perhaps has been quite timely given the Department of Health publishing its new digital strategy just before Christmas.  The DoH strategy “sets out how the Department of Health will give its staff the knowledge, skills, tools and confidence to embrace digital opportunities to deliver better health, better care and better value for all.”

At the moment for staff wanting to engage in digital opportunities to support learning and collaborative research there are still barriers with access to many Web 2.0 and social media tools being blocked.

The paper I’ve written highlights the emerging benefits of Web 2.0 technologies and, whilst taking account of potential risks, outlines some recommendations concerning their access.  I’m grateful to my colleagues from both the NHS and HE on the NHS-HE Forum Connectivity Best Practice Working Group for their feedback on the various drafts on the paper and their input into the final version of the document. We hope this document will prove helpful to various groups within the NHS as they seek to raise issues around the accessibility of web-based technologies.

I hope the paper will be of some use to those wanting to start a dialogue with NHS organisations about access to Web 2.0 and social media sites in the NHS to support learning and research.  I’m also hoping that we can start to gather case studies that can demonstrate ways that these technologies can be used to maximise their benefits for education and research particualrly given the growing interest in #FOAMed. I’m also planning to do some follow-up work to this paper which I hope to share over the next month or so.

If you’d like to contribute a case study on good practice or are interested in connecting around these issues please do leave a comment.

 

#ukmeded chat: MOOCs the future of medical education?

Moocs-mededT`onight’s #ukmeded Twitter chat is going to look at MOOCs and their potential role in the future of medical education.  In prepartion for the chat, this post provides a very brief introduction to MOOCs and sets out a few questions and points to think about that we can hopefully discuss and follow-up on the chat.

If you spend time on Twitter and you’re involved in education there’s literally no escape from the constant mention of MOOCs – massive open online courses.  MOOCs have been around for several years and the early MOOCs pioneered by George Siemens and Stephen Downes were designed around a connectivist approach to learning. This video from Dave Cormier gives an overview of how these early MOOCs operate.

Over the past 18 months the hype around MOOCs has been gathering pace as universities such as Stanford and MIT have started to run MOOCs.  Stanford had planned to run a clinical anatomy MOOC in March 2012, but this never materialised.  What did emerge though was three MOOC providers, Coursera, Udacity and edX with ambitious plans to run MOOCs across a range of subjects taught in higher education.  Universities have joined these MOOC providers and there’s a growing range of courses available.  Tens of thousands of individuals are signing up for MOOCs, and whilst not everyone is completing significant numbers are though they don’t generally receive any formal accreditation for completing the MOOC.  The MOOCs run by Coursera, Udacity and edX have become known as xMOOCs whilst those run with a more connectivity approach are labelled cMOOCs.

xMOOCs typically are built around 10-15 minute video lectures, discussion boards and different learning activities such as online quizzes or written work which might be marked by other students enrolled on the MOOC. Online learning is already widely used in medical education and so it’s no surprise that growing numbers of medical courses are being offered as MOOCs by Coursera and a piece in the BMJ a couple of weeks asked Are MOOCs the future of medical education? This is what we’ll consider in the #ukmeded chat on Thursday 9 May at 9pm (UK time).

There are lost of things we could discuss, but here a few points to start us off.

  • Will medical students in the future be able to study elements of their degree online via MOOCs?  Whilst medical students will need to be attached to a medical school or hospital for the clinical aspects of their training could the early years of a medical undergraduate curriculum be studied via MOOCs.  Could students pick and mix MOOCs from different medical schools?  How would learning on MOOCs from different universities and different countries be validated given that medical degrees are accredited and quality assured by regulatory organisations like the GMC.
  • Do MOOCs lend themselves more as a way of increasing options for student selected components or special study modules?
  • Could the cMOOC approach support more creative ways of teaching around topics like digital literacy skills, ethics, public health and global health, connecting students from different countries and cultures?
  • Are MOOCs more appropriate in terms of supporting continuing medical education and lifelong learning? Medicine is changing fast and MOOCs could be one way to support doctors keeping up to date.
  • What about #FOAMed?  The piece in the BMJ makes no mention of the growing #FOAMEd movement or connectivist MOOCs, do these have the potential to become more significant in medical education than the mega xMOOCs.

Tonight’s #ukmeded chat kicks off at 21.00hrs UK time.  The chat is open to anyone, you don’t have to be a doctor or medical student to take part or be based in the UK  so please feel free to join in the conversation.

POST SCRIPT

All the tweets from this #ukmeded chat have been curated and you can read them in the PDF file linked below.

#ukmeded chat – Thurs 9 May transcript on MOOCs via Symplur

xMOOCopoly: Will this end in the Wal-Martification of higher education

Recently I’ve been mulling over a comment made by Sebastain Thrun, founder of Udacity, in a piece in Wired last year that in 50 years time there will only be 10 institutions in the world delivering higher education.  I find Thrun’s vision for the future of higher education a bit depressing and if it proves to materialise I wonder what the economic and social impact on our communities will be, how will it affect the overall quality of education and the level of choice.

Whilst edX is being run as a not for profit outfit, the other key xMOOC players Coursera and Udacity will be hoping to return a profit for their investors. If these organisations thrive, other xMOOC providers join the frey and Thrun’s vision is realised will we see an xMOOCopoly in higher education emerge that will come to be viewed in the way that Wallmart and Tesco are in the world of supermarket retail. Supermarkets and out of town retail parks have brought us benefits in the way of cheaper prices and convenience.  However over time there is evidence that the likes of Walmart and other big companies have a negative impact on local businesses and beyond.

Thinking back to my childhood, I remember there were 3 or 4 butchers on the local highstreet, family run bakeries, fabric shops, wool shops etc. Today two of the green grocers remain, but none of the butchers, and whilst there is a bakery, the ones that were there when I was a kid have long closed down. Many UK high streets have vacant and boarded up shops, the hustle and bustle is gone.  In the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has turned to Mary Portas to help reviatalise the high streets of towns up and down the country as part of the Government’s policy on Improving high streets and town centres.  The policy is in response to the issue as outlined below:

“High streets are recognised as important hubs of social interaction and cohesion, as well as providers of local jobs. They’re a visible indicator of how well, or how badly, a local economy is doing.

But our high streets and town centres are facing serious challenges from out-of-town shopping centres and the growth of online and mobile retailing.

The government recognises that our high streets have to offer something new and different that neither shopping centres nor the internet can match. They need to offer an experience that goes beyond retail – the high street should be a destination for socialising, culture, health, wellbeing, creativity and learning, with schools, doctors’ surgeries and offices along with shops. Our high streets should be social places that make creative use of public spaces and with a vibrant evening economy.”

I’m not sure if our cousins on mainland Europe have quite the same problems in their town centres.  Visitng France, Italy or Spain, I’m always struck by the number and variety of shops in small towns.  In the UK every town centre seems to look the same, with the same chain stores, we don’t seem to have the same level of choice that our European cousins have. There’s choice in the supermarkets, but I think there’s less choice than in the past as chains like Tesco increasingly give more shelf space to their ownbrand products.

So what, boo hoo, what’s the big deal, isn’t this just a fuss about nothing and what’s this got to do with xMOOCs and the future of higher education.  The big supermarkets have got progressively bigger and once they’re in an area they tend to have a monopoly.  They’re large corporate companies striving to make ever larger profits.  That’s all well and good in the commercial world but do we want a higher education system in the future that is run solely to make profit for investors and shareholders.  What will the rise of xMOOC outfits like Coursera and Udactiy be on our existing universities. Furthermore if universities cease to exist in their current form and are driven by the need to generate profit what willl be the longer term econmic and social impact on our communities.

I have fond schoolgirl memories of going along to events at Nottingham University with some of our teachers. Screenings of Russian films and the fantastic Colonel Shaw chemistry lecture. These events gave a glimpse into the world of higher education.  Similarly today at Dundee University, where I now work, there are events for local school children, our students from medicine, dentistry and nursing go into schools and teach on health.  Other students run the Teddy Bear Hospital to inspire primary school children to consider a possible career in medicine.  There are widening access intiatives including summer schools. The University runs public lectures and a series of courses for the public.  There are collaborative events with the local Science Musuem with Galleries.  The University has been a key player in the V&A coming to the City, it also runs the local Literary Festival which has become a popular annual fixture.  The University is a significant employer in the city and generates income for the local economy.  The annual degree show of art work produced by students is a prime example of this, for example in 2009 it attracted 11,000 visitors generating £1.5million for the local economy (source – Contact).  Similar activities will be run by Universities up and down the country.  The public at large can also engage with openly accessible learning resources via platforms such as YouTube, iTunesU and the OU’s OpenLearn.  Nottingham’s periodic table videos on YouTube are a great example of this serving as today’s equivalent of the Colonel Shaw lecture I attended as a teenager.  Will this still be the case if Thrun’s vision comes to pass?  Sure there is lots of free and openly accessibe content on the web to engage people and perhaps TED will still be inspiring people about big ideas and similar initiatives may come to the fore. However if universities don’t exisit as they do currently and there are only 10 institutions worldwide running higher education how will the economic, social and cultural health of our university towns and their hinterlands be affected?  How will the social capital of communities be affected?

Goetz and Rupasingha looked at the impact of Wal-Mart on the social capital of US communities in the 1990s and found that those communities where new Wal-Mart stores were built or had an exisiting store and found it to be lower. The impact of the presence of Wal-Mart included:

  • the disappearence of local family run businesses, impacting on social relationships and the local leadership class typically involved in local networks and encouraging co-operation to address local problems.
  • local lawyers, bankers, accountants etc see a reduction in demand for their services and they leave the community and their contribution to the social capital of the community is lost.
  • opportunities for local entrepeneurs diminish.

Other trends seen in these communities were lower voter turnout in presidential elections, fewer voluntary groups and orgnisations that generate social capital such as business groups, churches, political organisations.  Meanwhile other studies have highlighted the impact of Walmart and other big retail corporations on low wage rates, lower volunteering rates.

Technology is drivng all sorts of change, the world has become a global village.  Big multinationals dominate in industry and retail.  Long loved names on the highstreet have disappeared.  Will universities disappear as we know them to be replaced by 10 corporate mega universities in the way that Thrun suggests?  Will any of these 10 operate on a not-for-profit basis?  A piece in the American Interest on ‘The end of the university as we know it‘, hails this future vision of universities.

“The technology driving this change is already at work, and nothing can stop it. The future looks like this: Access to college-level education will be free for everyone; the residential college campus will become largely obsolete; tens of thousands of professors will lose their jobs; the bachelor’s degree will become increasingly irrelevant; and ten years from now Harvard will enroll ten million students.”

The piece continues to hightlight the impact that technology and the internet has had on destroying other businesses and this vision of the future is unstoppable.

“We are all aware that the IT revolution is having an impact on education, but we tend to appreciate the changes in isolation, and at the margins. Very few have been able to exercise their imaginations to the point that they can perceive the systemic and structural changes ahead, and what they portend for the business models and social scripts that sustain the status quo. That is partly because the changes are threatening to many vested interests, but also partly because the human mind resists surrender to upheaval and the anxiety that tends to go with it. But resist or not, major change is coming. The live lecture will be replaced by streaming video. The administration of exams and exchange of coursework over the internet will become the norm. The push and pull of academic exchange will take place mainly in interactive online spaces, occupied by a new generation of tablet-toting, hyper-connected youth who already spend much of their lives online. Universities will extend their reach to students around the world, unbounded by geography or even by time zones. All of this will be on offer, too, at a fraction of the cost of a traditional college education.”

“The changes ahead will ultimately bring about the most beneficial, most efficient and most equitable access to education that the world has ever seen. There is much to be gained. We may lose the gothic arches, the bespectacled lecturers, dusty books lining the walls of labyrinthine libraries—wonderful images from higher education’s past. But nostalgia won’t stop the unsentimental beast of progress from wreaking havoc on old ways of doing things. If a faster, cheaper way of sharing information emerges, history shows us that it will quickly supplant what came before. People will not continue to pay tens of thousands of dollars for what technology allows them to get for free.”

WIll this really be free in the longer term?  The 10 mega universities in this higher education future will have to make money some how to survive, they won’t be able to give everything away for free.  This view is also though guilty of not looking at the bigger picture, what will the cost be in terms of impact on local communities. Dusty university libraries may be boarded up, buildings demolished or turned into car parks because students no longer study on a University campus.  But. what happens to rental housing market in our University towns, to the local economy to the cultural and social life of our communities.  Students make a significant contribution to the local communities they study in, economically, and socially through volunteering and fund raising activities. Will we see the Wal-Mart effect and depreciation in social capital as mega universities take hold?  Will there also be a McDonaldisation of higher education, no matter where you are in the world the same menu, with perhaps one or two local twists.  Ultimately a lack of choice, a blandness and reduction in quality.

Maybe xMOOCS won’t be around in 20 years time, perhaps they will be a passing fad.  It maybe the ‘open’ in xMOOCs disappears over time, or perhaps just like you can download a sample chapter of a Kindle book or hear the first 20 seconds of a song in iTunes, you can sample a week or two of a massive online course before signing up and enrolling on it.  But then you can already do that with OpenLearn resources from the OU, or with the countless resources in iTunesU.  xMOOC hysteria seems to have resulted in people forgetting that open online resources and cMOOCs have been around for quite sometime.

Conscious this has emerged into a bit of rambling post, and also not as well as referenced as I would have liked due to lack of time.  Personally I’m not sure I view the prospect of there  just being 10 higher education institutions in 50 years time as particualrly positive, but can appreciate others will think the complete opposite.

REFERENCES

Goetz, Stephan J., and Anil Rupasingha. “Wal-Mart and social capital.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88.5 (2006): 1304-1310.

Digital storytelling and reflection in medical education

Tonight I was taking another look at the #ds106dc Daily Create site which runs as part of the DS106 digital story telling course started of by Jim Groom at University Mary Washington. The daily create is one strand of ds106 and

provides a space for regular practice of spontaneous creativity through challenges published every day. Each assignment should take no more than 15-20 minutes. There are no registrations, no prizes, just a community of people producing art daily. Developed as part of the ds106 open course on digital storytelling, TDC is open to anyone who wants a regular dose of creative exercises (and it more fun than jumping jacks, pushups, and P90X).

How DS106 Changed My Life by giulia.forsythe, on FlickrA strong community has emerged around the #ds106 course and individuals have been sharing their creative works, which include photographs, drawings, audio recordings, video and writing via blogs, Flickr, YouTube etc. Looking at some of the daily create activities and artefacts got me thinking if something like this could work in medical education to support reflection.

A few weeks ago in the #ukmeded chat we discussed reflection, something which medical students and doctors alike see the benefit of but also sometimes despair about because of the tick box, jump through hoops approach that often seems to prevail in medical education.  Initial discussion around reflection kicked off at the end of a previous chat the whole chat is archived over on Symplur.

Digital storytelling has been been used to support reflection in medical education.  John Sandars has written about a pilot he ran with students at Leeds Medical School where a small group of 1st year students used digital storytelling to reflect on a personal and professional development module.  The students seemed to engage with this approach to reflection.  They liked the creative aspect of digital storytelling, they thought more about it things than when just writing an essay and the process of picking pictures had more of an impact on them. It was also viewed as a more stimulating form of reflection and appeared to encourage deeper and more meaningful reflection.

There are others using digital storytelling in medical education but I wonder if it’s something that could be more widely used to support reflection.  What would happen if the concept of the daily create was used with medical students perhaps as a weekly or monthly create activity, would it result in deeper and more engaging reflection or would it just become another chore that students complete through gritted teeth.  It would also be interesting to see what mght develop if there was an open medical education type digital story telling course like #ds106.  Maybe something worth exploring.

REFERENCES
Sandars, J. & Murray, C. “Digital storytelling for reflection in undergraduate medical education: a pilot study.” Education for primary care 20 (2009): 441-44.

IMAGE CREDIT
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by  giulia.forsythe 

Trends in medical education in the digital age

This is a presentation I gave when I visited Galway Medical School in March at a session of the Galway Area Medical Education group.  I’ve been meaning to post it up to Slideshare for a while and been prompted to upload it by Tom O’Neill’s tweet earlier today asking if anyone has screenshots or slides showing examples of Twitter in medical education. So here it is. In the session I gave an overview and considered some of the emerging trends in using technology in medical education and approaches to their implementation and rferred to some examples from across the continuum of medical education.

MOCCs, getting my first open badge, feedback & the NSS

Student Work and Teacher Feedback by Ken Whytock, on Flickr
One of the articles that caught my attention on Zite this morning  was ‘Four Good Reasons Why Students Need Instructor Feedback in Online Courses‘ by Debbie Morrison. In her post Debbie spells out why she doesn’t think MOOCs cut it for students entering higher education straight from school and particularly in relation to feedback.  This got me thinking about the National Student Survey and the fact that feedback is the criteria that universities typically score the lowest on.  If there was an NSS equivalent for MOOCs how well would Coursera, edX and Udacity score on feedback?
The 2012 NSS did show some improvement in the assessment and feedback category but there is still room for improvement. Whilst students welcome and value feedback from their peers what they really want is feedback from their teachers. On MOOCs with thousands of students it’s pretty much impossible to provide feedback to individual  students and so Debbie questions their role and suitability for school leavers entering higher education. She writes:
College students benefit greatly from instructor feedback, including when it’s provided in a small online learning community where interaction exists between students and instructor and students and students. In a Massive Open Online Course, [or even a F2F class of 100+ students]  it’s impossible to provide the required learning conditions for this type of interaction. It worries me that colleges and universities appear to be moving towards the MOOC model for delivering some or all courses (as in the case of SUNY or California’s public higher education institutions); courses that don’t provide for a student-to-instructor ratio that supports personalized learning. The MOOC model cannot provide the type of learning experiences needed for freshman or junior college students that is required for courses that include writing composition, communications, literature analysis, and other humanities courses. One could even argue that this is the case for some courses in math and sciences. Though I am an advocate of MOOCs, since they provide an excellent learning experience in numerous circumstances, the model which relies on the premise of massive, is not an effective one for every learner in every learning situation.
On xMOOCs it’s peer feedback that plays an important part of the learning dialogue and the posts that I’ve written on my blog whilst participating in the #h817open MOOC have generated comments here and discussion on the MOOC G+ community or on Twitter, which have made me think further.  This has all been good and helpful, however somewhat ironically, my last blog post on issues with OERs, which I submitted for an open badge didn’t get any comments (maybe it was just too long!).  So I received my first open badge (the badges were one of the reasons for doing this MOOC), I felt chuffed but I was also left thinking what did the individual who’d assessed my work and awarded me the badge actually think of what I’d written? An xMOOC is open and it’s free, so I wasn’t expecting feedback, but it did leave me wondering how a typical university student would feel not receiving feedback and reading Debbie Morrison’s post this morning I tend to agree that the lack of individual feedback in MOOCs is an issue. I have a badge on OER understanding but what was it about my evidence that meant I got the badge.  What does the badge actually say about my level of understanding.  I wonder if we need to have specific details of what’s required to be awarded an open badge to give it more meaning and context?
I’ve been thinking about how we might use open badges in medical education and have some ideas of where I could possibly introduce them in my own work.  The experience of getting my first open badge has given me food for thought about making the criteria for a badge explicit and involving some level of feedback.  So even though I didn’t get any personal feedback reflecting on this has been a useful learning experience for me.
I’d be interested to know what others, including my fellow #h817open MOOCers think about open badges and feedback.
IMAGE CREDIT
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License  by  Ken Whytock 

Issues with OERs: Leadership, reusability and students

On the #h817open MOOC we’ve been asked to consider some of the issues around OERs based on reading 3 articles from a list of suggested readings. I’m meant to pen around 500 words on what I see as three key issues for OER and how these are being addressed, but I think I’ll end up going over the suggested word count.

The articles I chose to read were:

  1. Atkins, Daniel Ewell, John Seely Brown, and Allen L. Hammond. A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities. Creative common, 2007.
  2. D’Antoni, Susan. Open Educational Resources: The way forward: Deliberations of an international community of interest. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2008.
  3. Hatakka, Mathias. “Build it and they will come?–Inhibiting factors for reuse of open content in developing countries.“ The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 37 (2009).

The three issues I’ve decided to highlight are

  • institutional leadership and strategy
  • reusability and
  • student involvement in developing OERs.

which have some overlap with the three priorities I’d identified as research priorities for OER.

Leadership and institutional strategy Atkins et al highlight that there is a challenge in institutions buying into OER and D’Antoni outlined the role that faculty can play in incentivising the development of OERs and the need for institutional leadership and support for OERs. Perhaps buy-in to the whole OER philosophy is more widespread amongst those institutions that have received funding for OER projects. Sometimes, however, I wonder what the motivation was in applying for OER funding? Was it driven by high level institutional buy-in on OERs or was it seen as a way to fund development of online material to support local curricula. But maybe I’m being unduly cynical! Back in 2011 the HEFCE Online Learning Taskforce published it’s report Collaborate to Complete. It recommended that institutions need to take a strategic approach to online learning and realign structures and processes to embed it. It said

Institutions and organisations need to invest in learning, and leadership and vision at the highest level is required to bring a step-change.  Such changes will not occur rapidly enough without effective organisational structures and processes.  Online learning is a strategic issue, not a simple, bolt-on option.

Whilst this recommendation relates to online learning generally rather an OERs specifically, it would be interesting to see how many universities have responded to it.  With all steady stream of hype around MOOCs have they become the focus of attention at senior levels in universities at the expense of OERs?

personally I’d like to see more defined policies developed around OERs in institutions and to see rewards in place for staff who create high quality open resources and see them getting recognition in the same way that researchers do.

Reusability

The article by D’Antoni mentions that if there is little or no awareness of OER availability then these resources can’t be exploited.  In some respects this links to institutional policies and strategy, if these don’t exist then how many staff are aware of OERs?  In my experience many staff aren’t aware of copyright issues around the reuse of online images let alone OERs and creative commons licences.

There are a number of issues that impact on the reusability of OERs.  For some academics there’s the ‘not invented here syndrome’, which hinders engagement with OERs and reuse or as Hatakka says simply a preference to develop local content.  There can also be issues or concerns about quality of OERs and where this relates to factual accuracy this is understandable.  In a field such as medical education, in which I work, the age of the OER can also be issue.  The resources we develop are subject to annual review and updated to reflect new clinical guidelines, and drug treatments. Do OERs have the same review cycle and include a detailed revision history documenting changes? Some of the issues around quality can also be very subjective and even trivial, such as not liking a particular colour scheme.

A more significant issue that limits reusability is context and this is particularly the case with large OERs.  This issue of context is raised in the articles by Atkins et al and Hatakka and again has relevance in medical education. Different countries have different healthcare systems, drug names, even within countries there are local clinical guidelines, national guidelines and differences in the NHS between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These issues are particularly significant when reusing content in developing nations.  Funding the development of medical education OERs in the developed world may seem well-intentioned, however this funding could perhaps be better invested in supporting medical schools in developing countries to develop resources based on local expertise and knowledge. Students undertaking electives in developing countries might also be encouraged to develop OERs that could help prepare others for their electives and the situations they may face.  Focussing development in the developing world would also help to develop resources for modes of delivery that are most accessible, in many African nations this would be for mobile devices.

Even with little OERs reusability can be an issue and this was something I witnessed when I was seconded to an academic collaboration called IVIMEDS – the International Virtual Medical School (Harden & Hart 2002).  IVIMEDS involved medical schools from around the world and started off with great ambitions.  These weren’t realised, in some ways some of the ideas were ahead of their time but there were also other issues which are shared by the OER movement.  One of the principles on which IVIMEDS ran was the idea of collaboration and sharing reusable learning objects (RLOs).  Medical Schools paid a membership subscription to be part of the IVIMEDS club and access a repository of RLOs. There was limited engagement with the big OERs developed here but more with the little OERs which were videos, medical illustrations and Flash animations explaining concepts and principles. Whilst these were used, there were frequent requests for the original Flash files as individuals wanted to edit and tweak these RLOs.  I think the ability to modify an OER may therefore also affect its reusability.  Many OERs are developed using locally developed technologies or proprietary tools eg Flash, Articulate, which not everyone has ready access to.  This was one of the reasons that IVIMEDS went on to develop Riverside a rapid content authoring tool so that content created by members could be modified and reused by other members.  There are also open source tools like Xerte developed by the University of Nottingham which may help to make content more reusable.  Open source content development tools would need to be a key component of the open participatory learning infrastructure proposed by Harris et al.

Finally in relation to reusability there is the role of Web 2.0 and social software, which may help to increase the reuse particuarly of little OERs.  Social media tools which support the curation and sharing of content, eg Scoop.it, Tumblr, Google+ and blogs can be used by teachers to provide context and narrative around OERs linking them to local curricula and used to signpost students to learning opportunities.  There is growing use of and engagement with Web 2.0 in higher education and this may lead to greater discoverability and reuse of OERs.

Student involvement in developing OERs

In the review of the OER movement by Atkins et al, the issue of sustainability of the movement is raised. One of the approaches to sustainability that they suggest should be explored is the involvement of students in “creating, enhancing and adopting OER”.  They propose an “OER Corps” where students could receive some training, recognition and some funding to facilitate their involvement in the creation of learning resources.  They feel that students could particularly play a role in developing content for disadvantaged communities and the developing world.

I think this suggestion could be taken further and the development of OERs could be embedded into courses and form new forms of assessment.  Do we always need to ask students to write an essay to demonstrate their understanding of a topic, could they create a video or some other type of resource.  This year in our 4th year dermatology clinical attachment students have been asked to work in groups and create a 5 minute video on a topic from a list of topics relating to dermatology.  They’ve also been asked to write some MCQs to go with the video, some open questions and provide links to additional resources for further reference. The initial reaction to this task has been a bit of a sigh but all the groups have really enjoyed working on these projects, their reflective pieces have highlighted how much they’ve enjoyed the task and how much more they have learnt because they’ve had to effectively teach a topic.  The quality of the videos has generally been excellent and it’s interesting to see the students also comment that they feel it’s been worthwhile because their work will benefit other students in their learning.  Essays are written never to be looked at again, but these videos will be looked at by other students both locally and wider afield where they’ve been posted to YouTube.

Involving students in the development of OERs is something I would like to see nurtured and developed further.  As I mentioned in my previous posts I think there are additional benefits to be gained for students around employability.

I’m well over the suggested 500 words, hopefully that won’t count against me when I submit this for my first badge!

Additional references

Harden, R. M., and I. R. Hart. “An international virtual medical school (IVIMEDS): the future for medical education?.” Medical Teacher 24.3 (2002): 261-267.