Case Study Title

Ophthalmology

School or Department

Medical Science Division – Learning Technologies

Institution(s) involved

University of Oxford

Contact + Email

Stella Hornby (stella.hornby@btinternet.com)

Christopher Smith (enquiries@medev.ac.uk)

Date

16^th June 2010

Tags

Ophthalmology; student learning; vitreoretinal disease; paediatric ophthalmology; eyelids; anatomy and physiology; pathology; pupil abnormalities; the lacrimal system; glaucoma; ocular pharmacology; eye; eyeball

Questions

Explanation and further information

1. What is the curriculum context of the resource or resource collection?

Approx. 250 words

Resource title: Ophthalmology

To support the undergraduate (year 5) medical curriculum – based on the internal council of ophthalmology’s curriculum.

Designed to help students study for their online assessment.

Self-directed learning

2. What were the aims and objectives of the resource or resource collection?

Approx. 100 words

To provide fictitious ophthalmological patient cases including medical case images to students to learn about various aspects of the ophthalmology syllabus.

3. How was the resource or resource collection implemented?

Approx. 250 words

Web content provided through a secure University of Oxford server. Only accessible to teaching staff and students at the University of Oxford – uses Magnolia password/database to hold content.

Secure HTML webpages compromising text and embedded images and flash tutorials.

No prior knowledge of SCORM compliance

4. What technologies and/or e-tools were needed to deliver this?

Approx. 150 words

Magnolia database/authentication

Embedded Adobe Flash content

HTML based web-pages

Technologies originally recommended by Vivien Sieber for accessibility – however difficulties occurred in getting the technologies to work well with image hosting and access.

5. What guidance and/or support did you develop?

Categorisation

Categorisation guidance followed and the resource was input into the resource categorisation toolkit. Unsure of IPR and Consent.

Patient Consent

Patient consent guidance was followed and indicated that the resources were suitable for OER as all images within the resource were licensed medical images, where patient consent had already been given to the original copyright holder (ImagesMD) for use as medical training images. Accompanying case information was fictitious and generated for each set of images.

IPR/Copyright

IPC/Copyright guidance was followed, and indicated that the resources were not suitable for release as OER. All images were obtained from ImageMD, under a paid license agreement between the University of Oxford and ImagesMD. This license has currently expired and University of Oxford no longer retain the right to use these images, but they remain accessible to Oxford students. Consequently, as the University of Oxford does not retain a license or the copyright to the images they cannot be released as OER.

Institutional Policy

No specific institutional policy guidance available at this time. A previous dispute between the content author (Miss Stella Hornby) and the copyright holder (University of Oxford) occurred after the content author was made redundant from a particular role at Oxford. After investigation it was established that joint copyright over the resources, between the content author and the university existed. During this time of dispute the resources were removed and were not available to students or staff. Access to the resource was later re-instated to the university by the original content author.

Internationalisation

Internationalisation guidance was not available.

Pedagogy and Quality Assurance

The preliminary pedagogy survey was completed. No modifications were made to the resource.

Resource Discovery and Re-use

Resource discovery and re-use guidance was not available. No current university wide guidance on resource discovery or re-use. This is done on a case-by-case basis when necessary, as some departments may have their own procedures.

Upload

Resource upload guidance could not be followed as the majority of the resource was unsuitable for upload to JorumOpen because it contained copyright images (ImagesMD), which comprised an essential component of the resource. Consequently the resource was not uploaded to JorumOpen.

All guidance obtained from the Medical Sciences Division Learning Technologies Department (based in Anatomy).

6. Uploading and hosting resources.

Not uploaded to JorumOpen due to image copyright issues – as all sub-sections contain essential images from ImagesMD.

Miss Stella Hornby – Lecturer in Ophthalmology

7. What are the key outcomes of the resource and/or resource collection?

Approx. 200 words

Resource increased potential access for students to resource material that was specifically mapped to the Oxford ophthalmology curriculum, rather than the previous method which was based around a student booklist.

Under strict definition the ophthalmology resource did not embrace OER, as it was not publically open, however, it did set a trend for web accessible resources that could be accessed by students and staff at the University of Oxford. A precursor to true OER and open learning materials/

Not tested in any quantitative means, however it was publicised in-house through awards given to the original content author, including the eLearning Technologies and Development Award.

8. What follow-up activity will be/has been carries out as a result of the resource or resource collection?

Approx. 150 words

Currently no follow-up projects are planned, as funding for the original content author’s teaching component was withdrawn and reallocated by the university

9. What are the lessons learned from the resource or resource collection?

Approx. 250 words

Sustainability

Sustainability problems exist with image copyright, as the images were obtained from a third party and had to be licensed. If images had been taken directly by the content author and permission gained from the patients, the resources would have encountered less resistance to being converted to OER.

Also further problems exist with potential patient image recognisability, as ophthalmological images require shots of the eyes, which are usually censored when trying to protect the anonymity of a patient in conventional circumstances.

Risks

No perceived risks.

Benefits

Potential benefits included cost benefits to the university and students. A one-time fee for the initial cost of creating the resource meant that it could be re-used at very little additional cost for further years of medical teaching. Additional costs are occurred, however, through the renewing of image licenses.

Unexpected outcomes

Creating original images represents a major sticking point. If the images had been created by the University of Oxford, rather than bought under license then they could have potentially been released under OER practice, had the original patients consented to this. As it stands the images could not be made open as they were technically being used under a license agreement that had expired.