Tag Archive for 'ocw'

Content IS Infrastructure (Welcome to the club, Chris)

Chris Lott’s recent post Open Content is So, Like, Yesterday has earned him Stephen’s attention and misinterpretation. Well, that’s happened to many of us. =)

I want to remix a little of his post and provide some supporting comments:

Good open content is a vital part of creating a vital open education apparatus… Content is just one piece of the open education mosaic that is worth a lot less on its own than in concert with practices, context, artifacts.

Opening content up isn’t the sexiest activity. But I would argue that in one way if it’s not the most important, it’s still to be ranked first among equals. (Emphasis added)

Yes, yes, yes! The way I’ve tried to communicate this idea is “content is infrastructure.” Now, everyone knows that infrastructure is not the sexiest thing to work on. Who grows up thinking “I want to build better roads when I grow up!” or “I want to squeeze more bits down a piece of glass faster when I grow up!”? Infrastructure is generally hidden away in the background, and we all just assume that it will be there and will work. Most people would rather ride the Harleys and launch the Web 2.0 startups, not lay the asphalt and improve routing efficiency.

Creating and sharing content is certainly not the sexiest part of the open education movement. But the open education movement is going nowhere fast without open content. And while infrastructure / content work generally doesn’t excite anyone, the results of innovation in the infrastructure space do excite people. What would you say if I told you that “fiber to the curb” internet service was going to be available at your house/apt in January!”? Probably the same thing you would say if I told you that “content complete, interactive courses - including assessments with feedback - will be available from BYU’s Open Learning pilot in January!”

Infrastructure is critical; open content is the infrastructure of the open education movement; and open content deserves the respect Chris is trying to give it.

On the possibility of openly publishing course materials at BYU

A good friend suggested to me yesterday that openly publishing my course materials may not be possible at BYU due to the Brigham Young University Intellectual Property Policy. Curious that such a restriction on my ability to openly share my course materials might exist, I explored the policy in more detail. Here’s what I found.

1. Course materials are Creative Works as defined by the IPP:

Intellectual properties are divided into two categories: technical works and creative works. Technical works include intellectual properties that are generally of a scientific, engineering, or technical nature—such as patentable or unpatentable inventions, devices, machines, processes, methods, and compositions; computer software; and university collections. Creative works include all intellectual properties not covered in technical works that are of an artistic, scholarly, instructional, assessment, or entertainment nature. Examples of creative works might include creative productions, such as works of art or design; musical scores; books, poems, and other types of scholarly or creative writings; films; video and audio recordings; and instructional materials, such as textbooks and multimedia programs. All computer software is included in technical works except that which is clearly developed for entertainment or for instructional purposes, e.g., electronic textbooks and textbook supplements, classroom and self-study tutorials. (Section I Para 1)

2. The university does not claim ownership of Creative Works when these are created with only nominal use of university resources.

The university retains ownership rights to all technical works but relinquishes ownership rights to the developer(s) of creative works when “nominal” use of university resources are involved in the production of the intellectual property. When “substantial” university resources are used in the production of creative works, however, the university will retain its ownership position, and income from the project will be shared with the developers. (Section IV Para 2)

3. “Nominal Use” of university resources is defined as things done within the normal scope of your employment at BYU.

Nominal use of university resources is use that is within the required activity of one’s appointment at BYU…. maintaining assigned levels of teaching, scholarship, and citizenship activities, so that anticipated performance in these areas is at the expected level. (Section IV.b Paras 1-2)

4. Course materials are explicitly mentioned in the Nominal Use section of the IPP.

Course or instructional materials may not be generated with the use of support units financed by the university (e.g., the Center for Instructional Design [note from David: this is now called the Center for Teaching and Learning]). Courses or instructional materials generated in the normal course of teaching, without such support, are allowed. (Section IV.b Para 3)

Conclusion: As long as I produce course materials myself, without additional funding or support from the university, courses and instructional materials I produce to support my own courses are created with only nominal use of university resources, and the university does not claim ownership. Therefore, as the rights holder, I will be able to continue openly licensing the materials I use in teaching my courses.

Hooray!

Upgrading Elsevier

If you believe, like many, that academic publishers like Elsevier are evil, you may want to upgrade your opinion of Elsevier itself to “small but definitely non-zero chance that this organization is not evil.” According to a joint release from MIT and Elsevier:

In a move to encourage open education, MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) and Elsevier have agreed to make available figures and text selections from any of Elsevier’s more than 2,000 journal titles for use on OCW. As a result of this landmark agreement, select Elsevier content can now be included within the open access OCW course materials - to be freely downloaded, used and shared under a Creative Commons license.

And while you would expect Elsevier to choose CC By-NC-ND as the license under which they distribute materials, I am impressed to say that they have have instead chosen CC By-NC-SA. (Insert NC rant here if you feel it absolutely necessary. I’ll wait. Finished?) In theory, the deal is only for MIT OCW right now, but once any of that material is licensed CC By-NC-SA, that horse is permanently out of the barn.

We’ll see where this goes; but wherever it goes, good for Elsevier. I can’t believe I just typed those words…

Republishing OCW

Thought you all might be interested in a little experiment I’m trying in republishing OCW materials in Wordpress - http://newmediaocw.wordpress.com/. There’s a ton we can do here with custom themes and plugins that would be really cool. Wouldn’t have the power of something like eduCommons, but would be much simpler to use, too.

Let me know what you think!

My final UNESCO IIEP post on free vs open

Derek Keats, who I greatly respect and admire, responded to my earlier post with this reply: Continue reading ‘My final UNESCO IIEP post on free vs open’