ICEH webinar: What is Open Education? Why is ICEH using it as part of our education strategy?


[Sally Parsley] Hello, everyone. I hope you can hear me. I’m delighted to welcome you to
our very first webinar on what is open education
and why is ICEH using open education as part
of our education strategy. My name is Sally
Parsley, and I’m the technical lead on the
Open Education Programme at the International
Centre for Eye Health here at the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. I’ll be hosting
this session today. So this is the first in
a series of five webinars that we’re hosting over
the next few months, which aim to explore some of the
positive innovation we think digital technology
and e-learning might help to bring to support eye
care training around the world In particular, through
the concept of openness and open education,
which are both topics Dasksha is going to be
talking about in more detail today, which we think
have been gaining interest among educators around the
world over the last few years and which we are
also working on. So we had 100 people to register
interest for this webinar. So this is fantastic,
and we’re really excited to see so much interest
from the eye care education community. So I hope you enjoy
the next 45 minutes and get to take away some
useful thoughts and ideas for your own practice. I’m now delighted to
introduce our very first speaker,
Professor Allen Foster, the co-director of ICEH. Originally from
Lancashire in the UK, Allen graduated with
honors in medicine from the University
of Birmingham in 1973. He was a general medical
officer at the Mvumi, [Allen, I’m terrible, sorry]
Hospital in Tanzania from 1975 to 1985
where with others, he helped develop a
national eye care plan and established a clinical
training program for doctors and ophthalmic assistance,
training over 200 people from all over Africa. Up to 10 years in Tanzania, he
returned to the United Kingdom to work for CBM as their
international medical director and later their chief executive. And he also took on the
leadership of our group, ICEH at the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He was closely involved in the
development of the VISION 2020 strategy to end
avoidable blindness. And he’s probably best known
as a passionate advocate and teacher for it. So it’s Allen’s unique
experience of academic research and teaching on three
continents, which has facilitated and driven the
development of ICEH’s education strategy. And he’s the ideal person
for me to introduce to you to talk about the big
picture in human resource development for eye health. OK, Allen, thank you very much. [Allen Foster] Sally, thank you. Good morning, good
afternoon, good evening. I’m good talk about
visual impairment, a global perspective. Then I’m going to talk about
human resources initially globally, but then focusing
particularly on Africa– where the greatest need is. Then I’ll speak a little
bit about what ICEH does in terms of education. So first of all, the number
of people blind and visually impaired in the world– the top two lines are from
the World Health Organization. 1990– WHO estimated 38 million
blind and 110 million visually impaired, and those visually
impaired from refractive eye wear were not
included at that time. By 2010, WHO said
the number of blind was 39 million and visually
impaired 246 million. The lower two rows are
from the global burden of disease estimates. So in 1990, the estimate
there was 32 million blind and 172 million
visually impaired, and by 2010, 32 million blind– 191 million visually impaired. I think one should point out
that over that 20-year period, the population in the world
increased quite dramatically. And also, the people
over the age of 50 increased significantly. So the fact that blindness
was not increasing probably means that services
were improving. And the number of people
with avoidable blindness was decreasing. So if we summarize
that, and I’m using the global burden of
disease figures here, we have 32 million
blind people– 191 million between
6/18 and 3/60– giving the total of 223
million with visual impairment less than 618 with a global
population of 7.3 billion. This is a complex slide,
but an important slide, and let me just
explain it to you. First of all, the blue
lines are dated from 1990. The yellow orange
lines are for 2010. Down on the left-hand side, we
have the regions of the world and then a global figure for
the whole world at the bottom. And then what we’re
measuring is the number of blind people per
million population. So if we look at the world
figure at the bottom, you can see that
in 1990, there were 6,000 blind people per
million population on average in the world. That equates to
0.6% prevalence– 0.6 per 100. By 2010, this had reduced
to 4,700 or 0.47%. If we look at the
regions, you can see that there was a decrease
in every single region over that 20-year
period, but also that the amount of
blindness in the poorest regions of the world is three
to four times the figure that we find in high-income countries. And again, this is
indicating to us that there is still a
significant proportion of avoidable blindness in
the world, either preventable or treatable diseases. So if we then ask what are
the causes of blindness, again, this is the global
burden of disease data for 2010. And you can see the cataract and
uncorrected refractive error, which are obviously very
treatable conditions, make up more than 50% of all
the blindness in the world. Trachoma is preventable. This is gradually decreasing
with the Global Elimination of Trachoma Program. And then we have
emerging conditions such as glaucoma and
diabetic retinopathy together with some children’s
problems like retinopathy of prematurity. And putting these together,
they are now about 13%, 14%, 15% of global blindness. And they would be preventable,
but obviously more difficult to prevent than the
conditions such as trachoma and vitamin A deficiency. And lastly, we have
conditions where treatment is more difficult– macula degeneration
and many other causes in white at the bottom. So moving on now from a
review of global blindness and the causes to a discussion
around human resources. And we don’t have
an exact figure of the number of
ophthalmologists in the world. But it’s estimated to be
between 150,000 and 200,000. One should point out that
not all ophthalmologists are trained in cataract surgery. So for a global
population of 7.3 billion, on average, we have 20
to 30 ophthalmologists per million population, but
not equally distributed. Here is a kind of
figure which gives you an indication of the
number of ophthalmologists per million population in
different parts of the world. In North, Central,
and Southern America, it’s usually more than
50 ophthalmologist per million– up to 100. Western Europe tends
to be between 20 to 60 ophthalmologists per million. The major population
countries of India and China are more than 10 and up
to 20 ophthalmologists per million population. Whereas most of Africa is
less than 5 ophthalmologists per million and some
places less than 1. So obviously, the big need
for more eye care resources in terms of people
and ophthalmologists is the Africa region. This is a geographic map
showing the countries in dark orange, which
are felt to have a shortage of ophthalmologists– mainly Africa with a few
countries of the Americas and some of Southeast Asia. So I’d like to now focus
on Africa for a few slides. Africa has 10% of
the global population and approximately 5 million
of the 32 million blind people in the world. However, in terms of resources,
or health expenditure, or in terms of
ophthalmologists, Africa only has 1% of the global
health resources and global ophthalmologists. So if we look at
the distribution of ophthalmologists in Africa
between anglophone countries, francophone, and lusophone,
Portuguese speaking, one can see, on average, Africa
has three ophthalmologists per million in the
anglophone countries, slightly less in
the francophone, and much less in the
six lusophone countries. This gives a little
bit more data if we say that a minimum
target is one ophthalmologists per quarter million– so four ophthalmologists
per million. Then by 2010, we would
need 4,000 ophthalmologists in Africa for about 1
billion population by 2010. And available at present
is less than 2,000. So we have a shortfall
of 2,000 ophthalmologists by the year 2020. The line on
optometrists is probably the minimum figure there– 1 per 250,000. It should now really
probably be increased to 1 per 100,000,
which would mean we would need
10,000 optometrists, and we have about 7,000. So we actually have a
shortfall of about 3,000. And then allied eye health
personnel are nurses– clinical officers. And again, we need 10
per million population. And so we would
need 10,000 by 2020. And we have about 5,000– so a shortfall of 5,000. So overall, one can see
that in Africa, there is a very significant gap
between the minimum number required, not the ideal number,
but the minimum number required of what is actually available
in terms of ophthalmologists, allied eye health professionals,
and also probably optometrists as well. So the question is what
about training centers for these cadres of eye staff? So if we look at the
anglophone for training centers for ophthalmologists
of the third row down. We have 39 anglophone centers,
nine francophone– only two in lusophone– giving
a total of 50 training centers for ophthalmologists in
Africa for a population of over 800 million. So one training
center per 16 million. Some of those training centers
train one or two optometrists or ophthalmologists a year. And some train 8 or 10 per year. So there’s no set figure. But the actual number
of training centers is insufficient. And this also applies
to optometrists– 24 for the whole of Africa– and allied health personnel– 36 training centers for
the whole of Africa. So what would be a model for
a population of 1 million? What would be an eye care team? This tries to give
some justification for minimum figures. So if we start on
the top row speaking about an ophthalmologist
or a cataract surgeon and saying that we would
like them to operate on 10 to 20 cataracts per
week given the 50-week year, that would mean they would
do 500 to 1,000 cataracts per year. So if we want a
cataract surgical rates of 2,000 to 4,000, which is
the kind of minimum to ideal that’s recommended
per million, we would really need four
cataract surgeons per million as a minimum figure. Then moving to eye
nurses and assistants, it’s recommended to
have at least two to three nurses or assistants
per ophthalmologist. So if we have a minimum
of four ophthalmologists, we need a minimum of 10
nurses or assistants. Moving on to optometrists,
if an optometrist does 20 refractions a day. that’s 100 a week. It’s 5,000 a year. And so with 10
optometrists, we would be able to refract
50,000 people per year per million population, which
would be 5% of the population. And that would seem to be
a minimum number, again, to provide an
acceptable service. And then, lastly,
community health workers– if we ask one health
worker to look after 20 families in a week, and
each family’s got five people, that would be 100 people. So that would be
5,000 people they would look after
in the year, which means we would need
2,200 community health workers per million population. So this is just to give
a kind of framework. It’s the minimum number
that would be required– so a minimum number– 4 ophthalmologists, 10
nurses, 10 optometrists, and 200 community health
workers or 1 million population. And most parts of
Africa are significantly below that at the present time. Why is this important? Well, the global
action plan to address avoidable visual impairment and
to bring about universal eye health– the five year plan, 2014 to
2019, has three key indicators. One is the prevalence of
avoidable visual impairment. A second is cataract
surgical coverage and cataract surgical rate. And the third key indicator
is human resources– the number of ophthalmologists,
number of optometrists, and the number of
allied personnel. And countries are asked to
monitor the number per million population within their
country to try and meet the minimum
requirements that we’ve addressed in previous slides. So what is the International
Centre of Eye Health doing in terms of
education activities. I’ll summarize this
quickly on this slide. The key activity is the master’s
training in public health eye care, usually with 15
to 20 students per year training them in public health
for eye care planning really for leadership positions
back in the ministries of health, or universities,
or NGOs working in their home countries. At the grassroot level, we
produce the Community Eye Health Journal. Four issues are done each year. It’s sent free of charge. It’s also put on the internet. It’s in English, French,
and there are also Chinese versions, and
occasional Spanish versions. And this is really education
for the grassroot worker, be it the community health nurse
or the ophthalmic assistant, the ophthalmic nurse,
and also ophthalmologists working in the field. We have had a variety of
short, one-week courses in international eye health
and planning for eye care. And particularly for Africa,
we have the Links Health Partnership Program. The purpose of this is
to improve the quality and quantity of
eye care training within the training
centers in Africa. And we do this through
partnering training centers in Africa with the UK
ophthalmology departments in a linked program to
help improve training. And then, lastly, what we’ve
started the last few years is the Open Education
Programme, which Daksha will be talking more
about in a few minutes. So I hope this has given
you a quick overview of global blindness, the health
resources around the world to address blindness, and
then focusing in on Africa where the greatest need is. Thank you. [Sally] Thank you
so much, Allen. That was super interesting,
and it’s so clear the huge challenge
in human resources that eye care is facing to help
support the global action plan. I’m pleased to see we’ve got
some questions in already, and that’s great. And we’ll address those
after our next presentation. So now we’re going to
turn to Dr. Daksha Patel. And she’s going to go into
some of the new opportunities that this idea of open
education might help bring to eye care educators. Dr. Patel is the e-learning
director at the International Centre for Eye Health. Originally from
Kenya, she practiced as a physician and
ophthalmologist in East Africa for over
8 years before coming to ICEH to study the master’s
in community eye health, as it was then, in the mid ’90s. Her interest and passion lie
in human resource development for eye care. And she ICEH’s master’s
course director for public health for
eye care for 14 years. During this period,
more than 300 students from across the globe came
through the corridors of ICEH, and in the process, shared their
frustrations and experiences with the training facilities
in their own settings. And even after the
course, they continued to share their
learning about how they went back and
implemented what they had experienced on the course. This became a key
inspiration for Daksha, and she grasped the
first funding opportunity that came ICEH’s way to start
development of e-learning in 2014. And she now leads our
Open Education Programme. OK, I’m going to hand
over to you now, Daksha. Thank you so much. [Daksha] Thank you, Sally,
and thank you, Allen, for setting the
backdrop and giving us an understanding of the high
needs and the low resources that we’re faced with. In 2014, we began to explore
with innovative approaches for training specifically in
the arena of open education. What we want to do today is
look at what is open education? Is it relevant and applicable
for eye care education. And what is available
from here at ICEH. And to do this,
what I’ve done is I’ve broken down the
words open education to look at open and education
as separate entities. When we think of
open, we’re really talking about no barriers
or lack of obstacles. Accessibility is a
key component of that. And legally
unrestricted, I think that is one of the
main components of what we refer to any idea open– not working and functioning
within silos, but becoming more collaborative. And of course, the idea that
open may suggest it’s free will put a question
mark next to it, because it’s not
free for development. There are development
costs attached to it, but there are also
accreditation costs that may be attached to it. When we actually
talk about education, people actually
confuse it with a place like schools or colleges
when seeing or hearing that word or perhaps
even with jobs such as tutors or teachers. Education really is a
process of inviting the truth and exploring the
possibility or encouraging and giving time to discovery. In this view, educators look
to act with people rather than on them. And their task is to educe,
or from that Greek word educere, which is to bring
out or to develop potential. So I’d like to suggest that
education is deliberate. We act with a purpose to develop
understanding and judgment and enable action. And as educators,
we are all clear that education takes
place on a linear plane within a curriculum
usually when we’re talking about formal education. But there is, I believe, room
for informal education, perhaps even on that same continuum. And we like to think
of that as perhaps self-directed education. So really open education
is about a philosophy to produce, to share,
and build our knowledge. And proponents of
open education believe that everyone in the
world should have access to high-quality educational
experiences and resources. And this means we need to
begin to address barriers such as cost of education,
replacing, or removing outdated and obsolete
teaching materials and then preparing
legal mechanisms that allow collaboration to
take place between scholars and educators. So I thought it might be
quite interesting to look at the origins of open education
from reusable learning objects, to open educational
resources, to MOOCs. And I’ve created this
very brief time line. Of course, a lot more is
happening then just what I’ve been able to put here. But within the UK training
systems, in about 1982, an interesting Nelson’s
Review took place about why the UK lagged
behind the competitor nations in the use of IT
within university education. What they actually concluded
was if educators began sharing that expertise,
the quality of education would likely to improve. But more importantly, also there
would be efficiency savings. But of course, in ’89 came the
invention of world wide web, and that was the biggest open
thing that could have happened. And it gave rise to a number of
different things that happened, and one of the
things that came up was Reusable Learning
Objects, RLOs, and these are still in use. And this is specific content. I’d like to think
of it as the LEGO bricks, which can be created. They’re not always
pedagogically supported. But they clearly allow
a sharing of knowledge. And I’d like to
think, for example, a video in cataract surgery
is a good learning object. Then came the creative
commons license, which took away the restricted– which took away the
restrictiveness of sharing. The biggest open
educational resource– and that’s a word
coined by UNESCO– talks about the
biggest one I think is the open courseware
launched by MIT. But following on
from there, there have been many
innovations, and this includes the launch of Open
Learn from the Open University here in the UK, in China,
called CORE, the Khan Academy. And this has, of
course, led to a number of different innovations as we
now know as MOOCs and Coursera being one of the
largest providers. I draw your attention to
the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, which has a very
important point in that it looks at the issues
that might be facing open education and
its recognition and how can we address that
particularly at policy level. So coming from that
perspective, we were really attracted
to these perspectives of open, online,
unlimited participants, curriculum driven, and
certainly looking for reuse, retaining, revising,
and remixing, and redistribution
of our content. We are aware that there is a
lot of open practices out there. And these will certainly allow
for used, reused, sharing, adoption, and flexible
learning in eye care. But we don’t forget there
are continuous challenges in connectivity, digital
literacy, lack of time, and institutional policies. And what we’ve done
is we’re looking at this as a whole as
open educational practice. The challenges that we face
in our health education both lie at the
training program level as well as at the individual
practitioner level. We know that training facilities
are under a lot of pressure. They have small faculties,
limited budgets, limited infrastructure,
and at the same time, need to keep up with
the changing students’ learning styles,
particularly that is influenced by about social
networks and the internet. And the importance–
as Allen has suggested, the importance of the
global action plan and the alignment of the
national eye health strategy. Individual practitioner
levels– particularly in remote settings– access, cost, and time
for learning is an issue. This is made worse by
the lack of availability of professional development. And then the final stumbling
block of selection criteria– not enabling everyone to have
equal access to learning. So from our perspective
and particularly we need to address public
health and eye care, we did look at the good
things we are doing, which is leadership
through the masters. We realize that our programs
can be expensive– scholarships are few. We have a selection criteria. And it means clinicians are
away from their families and their clinics. And we want knowledge to
be applicable and relevant for the local level. And we wanted to address
all these key issues. So what have we done so far? We’ve created I would
say three big courses– one being on global blindness,
planning, and managing for eye care services. This has taken the
shape of both as a MOOC and also as an open educational
course on the London School’s open study platform. And we’re going to have
our third run starting on the 20th of February
on FutureLearn. We’ve had over
5,000 people who’ve done this course already. We have another course,
which is in two parts, on ophthalmic
eipidemiology, which looks at the basic
principles and how we are able to
apply epidemiology to understand eye diseases. And both are now
open and available for use on the
open study platform here at the London School. And the final one is on
eliminating trachoma. We’ve already
completed the first run with over 2,700
participants on it. And the second run is
planned for the 17th of April this year. What I’d like to highlight here
is that each of these courses has several elements within
it– up to 60 different source resources within it. And you can take them
as videos, as quizzes, as discussions, and articles. What we want to see and develop
are pathways for open education within local settings. And we think there are
three clear pathways. They certainly are
what individuals can do for
self-directed learning either through the
full course or to pick and choose the content the
need, even to get accreditation and strengthen their own CVs. For the educators,
we are very keen that they would look at
additions of this content to their existing
curriculum and therefore bringing in flexibility
and faculty support, adding it to their
specific teaching sessions to what is now being
called flipped learning. And in these
webinars, we’re going to be looking at
this in some detail. And we would encourage sharing
and adaptation by educators to redesign their curricula. At the institutional
level, we are looking to see if
accreditation is an option that can be assigned
to these open educational courses in IHEC. We have a lot in the pipeline. We have Diabetic Eye Disease:
From the Patient to the Health System starting in 2017– Retinopathy of
Prematurity in 2018– Research Methods in
ophthalmology in 2018– and Glaucoma is going
to be planned for 2019. I do have to take time here
to really thank support that we’ve got from
the Seeing is Believing Program from the Standard
Chartered [Bank] and the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust,
who’ve actually supported us to develop these open
educational practices that are now going to go
on in eye health. So thank you very much. [Sally] Thank you
so much, Daksha. You’re busy, and
so am I. Thank you both to both of our presenters
and to everyone here. I hope you’ve enjoyed this. I think from Daksha’s
presentation, we can see that this idea of
Open is a really powerful one. And I think it’s
already embedded in the knowledge sharing that so
many eye care educators already freely practice. So we’re already used to
sharing resources and ideas with each other. And what I think
Open brings is a way of leveraging that
so the institution– we can use the internet. We can scale up the
amount of sharing. Institutions can get
involved and start sharing in a more formal way. So I know we’re a little
bit short of time. So I could chat on,
but I’m not going to. I’m going to be a good host. And we now have a bit of time
for questions and answers. So I’m just– oh,
we’ve got quite a few. I’m going to start with
two really tough ones from Michael Gichangi. So I’ve got one
question for Allen from Michael which is, “Is
the shift to comprehensive eye care likely to change our needs
in terms of workforce training? What about task shifting
and task sharing?” And my other question
to Daksha from Michael before I hand it over
to Allen is, “How are we going to measure the change that
comes from this open education program? How are we going to
assess how effective it is and also the impact it has
maybe in five years time?” [Allen] OK, thanks
Sally and thank you Michael for the questions–
so just to go over it again. The MOOC comprehensive
eye care– does that change the
needs in terms of numbers of eye care team members? And also, what’s that
mean for task shifting? So the original
VISION 2020 initiative focused on five diseases
with the aim being that if the blindness
was preventable treated from those diseases,
we could reduce the amount of blindness in the world. The idea was that
that was a focus. It was to create the priority
setting for what would happen. However, even within
those five diseases, it was that there
would be an eye care team delivering services for
a population of 1 million. And the eye care team would
deliver general eye care services or comprehensive
eye care services. It wasn’t that they would
only do cataract or only do trachoma. It was that they
would do everything. But using those five diseases
to show what the focus and what the needs should be. So coming back, does
it change the needs? I don’t think it changes
the minimum needs. Of course, as one addresses
the problems of trachoma, and cataract, and
vitamin A deficiency, and begins to go on to
improving services for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy,
then the skills and possibly the
numbers of people trained to deliver those
services will change. So in the 1990s when VISION
2020 was being developed, we weren’t talking
about training people to do laser for
diabetic retinopathy. So, yes, certain
things are changing. And going back to it, the
minimum numbers I think are still reasonably valid. I don’t think that
changes a lot. The question of task shifting is
perhaps the more important one. Given the fact that we don’t
have even the minimum numbers, particularly in Africa, then
it’s very important that the people that we do have
are spending their time doing the jobs that are
most important, which other people cannot do. So the simple thing
of ophthalmology should be doing
cataract surgery perhaps rather than refracting,
which can be done by optometrists or by nurses. And moving into the
future with things like diabetic
retinopathy, there’s no reason why
ophthalmic assistants can’t be doing the screening
for diabetic retinopathy. And although it’s not
yet been promoted, one may even think of people
being trained specifically to provide treatment
for diabetic retinopathy and leaving the ophthalmologists
to be doing the surgery that they’re trained to do. So I think task shifting is an
important issue which we’ve not yet done enough and which we
need to think more and more about as we go forward,
looking at what the job is and then specifically training
people to do that job. Daksha. [Daksha] So on the issue of how
are we going to measure change, it’s a fantastic question. And certainly, that preoccupies
us or most of the time. But what I would like
to share here is if, yes, of course we have
to measure the impact. But we are going to have
to mention the impact alongside the strong
influence that technology is bringing to the whole
educational frontier. It is shaping education
in a very different way, and our users of the
education and the learners on our programs are
very different now to perhaps what Allen and
I were many years ago. So from an individual level
and from the little experience that we’ve already
had from our users, which there are several
examples on how changes occurred at an individual level. Practices have
changed how they’ve gone about addressing their
cataract surgical rate– the numbers of
people that are now doing school eye health
as a result of having taken the courses. So there are certainly
measures that we would like to take
forward as clear case studies at an individual level. When it comes to educators,
what is the change that’s going to come about
at the curriculum level or in their teaching practices? What we are keen to
capture is how many people have used this to strengthen
their own curricula? And what are the
different practices that are going to
happen at that level? And certainly, when it comes
to the institutional level, what is the influence at
the institutional level for accreditation
and the development of policy for open education? Because we certainly want to
understand that open education does not only promote
a one directional movement of knowledge, but
it is about the sharing. And to capture
this both in terms of qualitative and quantitative
will be our priorities– perhaps to a range of analytics,
pre and post course surveys, qualitative interviews. So there’s a wide
range of tools that we would like to implement in order
to capture this very important shift through open education. [Sally] Thank you, Daksha. Thank you, Allen. We’ve got quite a few questions. So I’m going to
bunch them up again. So I’m going to give Allen a
couple questions, and Daksha, and then we’ll go back to
Allen to answer the first one. So for Allen, Lila
Puri has got in touch asking some
questions about data. “With the data we
have how are we doing in terms of VISION 2020? And is there are specific
WHO recommendation for HR developments in
Asian countries as well?” And I’m just hunting
with one more. “Is 2010 the latest
data that we have for global burden of blindness?” And for Daksha,
we have a question from Unudeleg
Bayaraa in Mongolia. Hello. She was asked– they
were asking, “Are we planning on making our master’s
in public health eye care degree online available as
distance learning online?” And a question from Susan
Evans from the UK of– the question is,
“Given that there are large discrepancies
between the distribution of eye staff within
countries, are finding that these online courses
are reaching staff outside the capital cities
in more rural areas where they may have less comprehensive
internet connectivity?” OK, I’m going to
hand it over to Allen to answer the data question. OK, and I’ll try and
keep it very specific. So the VISION 2020 model
was that in the year 2000, there were an
estimated 45 million blind people in the world– that that would increase to
76 million by the year 2020, because of population
growth and aging– that if one addressed the
avoidable causes of blindness so that one could make all
the world similar to the most developed quarter of the
world in terms of prevalence and causes of blindness. And instead of 76 million
blind, there would be 24 million blind by the year 2020. So that was the model. So then the question
is how are we doing? Well, according to
that model in 2010, if things were
continuing to get bad or continuing to progress
the way it was anticipated, we would have been at
about 62 million blind. As it was, the data from WHO
suggests about 39 million and, from the global burden
of disease, 32 million. So if you like taking
the middle figure there, that would be about 35 million. So we’re much less than
what was projected. We’re less than what it
was in the year 2000. And we’re actually
less than what was projected to reach our
24 million by the year 2020. So basically, vision 2020 in the
year 2010 seemed to be on track and seemed to be that
things are going well. Then there was a question, do we
have any more up-to-date data? I don’t. I know that data has
been collected recently, and I think there is going to
be a review of the data maybe for 2014 or 2015. But I haven’t seen
those figures. So the latest published data
we have, as far as I know, is 2010. Then we got an ophthalmologists
and targets for Asia. I think the target for Asia
was 10 cataract surgeons per million population. So when I say
cataract surgeons, I mean ophthalmologists were
trained to do cataract surgery. And again, going
back to it, this should then be
equally distributed. So very often we take these
take figures for a country, but of course, what we know
is that the majority are in the capital cities and
few in the rural areas. So what we’re looking at
is an equal distribution, but the target
figure for Asia was 10 million ophthalmologists. [Daksha] So to very
briefly try and answer the question about will we
be doing our masters online? The answer is that is
a big leap to take. But we’re certainly
hoping that we can bridge the gap between what
we have here within the London School and the need for
similar public health education can be bridged using our open
educational content that we’re trying to put out. So we are hoping
that we can begin by building these bridges first
and then perhaps examining that in the long term to see if
a distance learning program is required. The second very
interesting question is on the distribution and the
reaching the remote learner using open education. And that is certainly
the individuals that we would like to reach
through our various open educational resources. And to do this, we’re
actually looking to work with in-house country
facilitators and educators who can not only support
with localized content, but make it possible to
reach them not just using the online medium,
but also perhaps using what is most available
for their learners in these remote settings. So we would like
to encourage people who are interested to
get in touch with us. Let us know what are the
challenges they’re facing and how can we help them to
bridge the challenge of making sure education gets
to the practitioner in the remote settings. [Sally] Thank you both. Thank you so much. There are a couple
of other questions. But I’m hoping to answer them
as I wrap up this webinar. So our next one will be
on the February the 23rd. And what we’re
going to do next is look in more practical terms
at, does Open Education actually work in practice? So we’ll be sharing
our experiences which Daksha briefly
touched on there about working with partners. And we’re also very pleased
to welcome Dr. Rob Farrow from the Open University. And they’ve just finished a big
in-class study on how using OER changed educators’
practice and knowledge. So I very much hope you’ll
be able to join us there. I think if you’re
an educator, you will find it very interesting. We’ll be sending out
invites to this webinar through the ICEH
email list again. So keep your eye out. And if you want to find out
more about the other webinars, we’ve got another five
in total coming up. And each of them look
at a different aspects. And we really try to make
it appropriate to eye care educators needs. So it’s really how you can
use these materials, how you can access them, adapt
them, share them, or even get started yourself. We’re going to be looking at
quite a wide range of uses of this open education idea. So visit the web site. That’s the address there
for all the details on our Open Education Program. Finally, thank you
again to our funders. None of this would be
happening with them. So thank you very
much, everyone. Have a great
afternoon, or evening, or possibly the morning. Take care. Bye. [Daksha] Bye.

2 thoughts on “ICEH webinar: What is Open Education? Why is ICEH using it as part of our education strategy?”

  1. Very interesting and informative presentations by Prof Foster and Dashka Patel. Always a delight to listen to this amazing educators.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *