Crowdsourcing and Open Access v2.0

Timothy K. Armstrong
Assistant Professor of Law
U. of Cincinnati
timothy.armstrong@uc.edu

Improving access to scholarship and primary source materials.

Many open-access repositories exist:

• single institution (Harvard, one day; Duke, OCU)
• cross-institution (SSRN, Expresso, LexOpus)

Faculty adopting open-access mandates

• Harvard (but John Palfrey says compliance is an issue)

Law reviews going open-access, too

• Open Access Law Program

The Durham Statement (2009)

Going Digital has four steps. First, scanning the documents–actually getting into some kind of digitized format into the computer. How, then do you get the text into a readable format? Then, you need to proofread and correct text. Finally, how do you distribute it in a way that is “findable” and “searchable.”

It is important that you do not try to do these four steps by yourself. Look outside of your institution for help. A lot of this work has already been done so why recreate the wheel? For example, the Google Books, Internet Archive, Library of Congress–places to go that have already cleared one of these hurdles. Once you have the scans there are various free Web sites that  offer services will ocr the text for you (Any2DjVu). Now we start get into tasks that scale. There are two

Distributed Proofreaders (affiliated with Project Gutenberg) and Wikisource (a sister site of Wikipedia). The pros of DP are they are very large and supportive and is fast, at least in the early rounds. The cons are that is it bureaucratic & hierarchical, new users cannot add texts and few texts of interest to the legal community. With Wikisource, the pros are that any user can add or edit any work, there is an easier user interface and many legal texts are already available. The cons are that they are much smaller than DP or Wikipedia and slower to complete proofreading projects.

You can collect his slides on his Google docs page.

Filed under: Educational Technology, General, Instructional Technology, Legal Education , cali09

IT and Faculty as Partners in Education: Basic Tools For Change

Greg Clinton

James Beckwith

North Carolina Central University

From the CALI Web site session description:

NCCU School of Law has had tremendous success with the faculty adapting and embracing technology. Currently over 90% of the faculty uses technology for instructional purposes. This session will discuss the technology environment at NCCU and hear from faculty about their usage of technology to include, classroom capturing solutions, clickers, smart classrooms, group study rooms,etc. IT and faculty have become more like partners in the deployment and usuage of technolgy. This session will discuss this partnership as the basic tool for change.

You must know the benefit from the faculty member’s point of view.

See Raising the Bar.doc.

Filed under: Educational Technology, General, Instructional Technology, Legal Education , cali09, faculty

Cool Gadgets, Software and Utilities Every Faculty Member Should Have

Sydney A. Beckman
Dean and Professor of Law
SydBeckman@gmail.com

Duncan School of Law – Lincoln Memorial University

Syd Beckman

See the list of gadgets he discusses on my delicious page. You can also download his powerpoint from the CALI conference Web site.

Filed under: Educational Technology, Favorite Tech Sites, General, Instructional Technology, Legal Education, My Teaching , cali09, gadget

Mobile Computing and Learning @ ELI

From session description: “Mobile and ubiquitous computing may support a social constructivist learning process by helping students engage in learning activities in diverse locations, access resources at the point of learning, and communicate with distant collaborators anywhere, anytime. This session will describe the transformation of learning-related activities brought about by the introduction of ubiquitous and mobile technologies in learning environments and the relationship among applications (for example, social tagging, social networking, and context-aware computing). It will also describe how these technologies affect the physical setting as well as the forms of social participation within those settings.”

Watch the full presentation online.

Filed under: Educational Technology, Instructional Technology , eli

From Knowledgeable to Knowledge-able @ ELI

This presentation is given by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University. The description states “It took tens of thousands of years for writing to emerge after speech, thousands more before the printing press was invented, and a few hundred more for the telegraph to arrive. Today, new ways of relating are constantly created and a new communication medium emerges every time someone creates a web application—a Flickr here, a Twitter there. How can we use new media to foster the kinds of communication and community we desire in education? This presentation will discuss both successful and unsuccessful attempts to integrate emerging technologies into the classroom to create a rich virtual learning environment.”

This kind of classroom of today is saying “to learn” is to acquire information, information is scarce and hard to find, trust authority for good information, authorized information is beyond discussion, and obey authority. Some of the people criticizing the  “back to basics” critique of new media literacy are saying we are pandering to students, neglecting basic literacy skills and it is difficult to implement. The response to this is that the critical folks of back to basics are the ones pandering to students, neglecting basic literacy skills (b/c basic skills are now including being digitally literate) and difficult to implement.

“Back to Basics” includes asking good questions (or one big question) instead of questions like, how many points is this worth?, how long does this paper need to be?, what do we need to know for this test?, etc. This new media scape all around us is challenging these assumptions. Information is everywhere, its not about authority its about good discussions, authority needs to be transparent, and learning is dependent upon participation and discussion (not just obeying authority). To learn is to share information, discussing, critiquing and ultimately creating new information. The old notion of your mind is container that needs to be “filled up”, it is creating meaningful connections of significance. So as educators, how do we create significance? How can we create students that can create meaningful connections?

1. Engage real problems (that matter to students)
2. Engage with students in this process

He is arguing that there is a lot of talk about Digital Natives, but there are no natives here. With the exception of Google, most of these new Web 2.0 technologies are less than 4 years old. So in essence, we (students & teachers) are all learning together. He suggests utilizing portals (looks like a combination of Wetpaint and Netvibes) with RSS feeds (from scholars all over the world engaging in the same subject matter), collaborative video (see his Youtube video for Library of Congress and his Twitter and World Simulation video), diigo (share links, highlight any page anywhere and add sticky notes), feed from wiki (logs edits, immediate feedback who is editing what, photos on left with pictures that get bigger with more participation), students share lecture notes, and discussion sections. His focus is on different ways of creating learning communities in his classroom through exploiting some of these technologies.

“Nobody is as smart as everybody”-Kevin Kelly

Filed under: Educational Technology, General, Instructional Technology, web 2.0

Educause Learning Initiative: U.S. 2009 Horizon Report

I am at the Educause Learning Initiative (ELI) for a couple of days. My current session is debriefing the technologies, trends and challenges of the 2009 Horizon Report (also see the workspace Wiki for the Horizon Project). The report has been downloaded over 45,000 times so far. The following is from a handout they gave out during the session (2009, The New Media Consortium):

Technologies:

• Mobiles
• Cloud Computing
• Geo-Everything
• The Personal Web
• Semantic-Aware Applications
• Smart Objects

Trends:

• Increasing globalization continues to affect the way we work, collaborate, and communicate.
• The notion of collective intelligence is redefining how we think about ambiguity and imprecision.
• Experience with and affinity for games as learning tools is an increasingly universal characteristic among those entering higher education and the workforce.
• Visualization tools are making information more meaningful and insights more intuitive.
• As more than one billion phones are produced each year, mobile phones are benefiting from unprecedented innovation, driven by global competition.

Challenges:

• There is a growing need for formal instruction in key new skills, including information literacy, visual literacy, and technological literacy.
• Significant shifts are taking place in the ways scholarship and research are conducted, and there is a need for innovation and leadership at all levels of the academy.
• We are expected, especially in public education, to measure and prove through formal assessment that our students are learning.
• Higher education is facing a growing expectation to make use of and to deliver services, content and media to mobile devices.

You can watch the session in full online.

Filed under: Educational Technology, General, Instructional Technology, web 2.0 , eli

Collaboration Tools

I am attending a Boston area Ed Tech group that meets periodically to share ideas around instructional technology in higher in education. Today, we are discussing real time collaboration technology.

The first speaker (Peter Hess, MIT) is discussing different Web conferencing software. The first technology, Yugma, wasn’t working well (due to network issues) so we skipped it. It is a free web conferencing technology so feel free to check that out at a later time. We are looking at ooVoo, a free online video chat and video conferencing.

The free version provides:

• 3-way live video chats
• Unlimited 1-minute video messages
• Share and send files up to 25MB each
• Video effects

Moving on to Vidyo, we have another Web conferencing software to demonstrate. This company is the first to take advantage of the most recent enhancement to the H.264 standard for video compression.

People in the meeting are now introducing themselves and discussing what they are doing with Web conferening efforts at their own school. We hear people are using WebEx, Elluminate, Adobe Connect, Radvision, Wimba, and Saba Centra.   Many are still in an evaluation stage and some mention they aren’t satisfied with the results (e.g., performance issues).  People are using Web conferencing for faculty consultations with students, conferencing, meetings, online video technologies for the library and distance learning.

Phil Knutell from Bentley is talking about their 17M library renovation. You can see his slides from the Nercomp Web site. View some of the new rooms on the Bentley Web site. People in his class are required to do presentations. Students are required to give feedback to people about their presentation via the class Wiki (located on Blackboard). Peer evaluation is done using survey tool in Google spreadsheets. He states it is simpler to use than Perseus SurveySolutions or SurveyMonkey. He also creates a syllabus in Google docs means he does not have to upload or download the file. He simply inserts links to published doc from the course Bb site.

• Hybrid class support team:
  • Got tired of tracking versions/revisions & not being able to edit if checked out
  • Wanted public URL on web server so TAs could view, but uploading to web server or using SharePoint a hassle
  • Inviting collaborators, assigning permissions, & learning to use very easy (95% of most-used Office 2007 features)
• Library wiki and blog allow entire staff to contribute

Daniel Jamous from FAS asks about student privacy issues. Phil states it can become an issue if you let it become an issue. Google states they are a higher education focused server. Yes, the student information is stored on their server but they state they don’t have any interest in accessing it.  For K-12 and higher ed, google applications is free. Are their FERPA issues? Possibly. He is impressed with the company’s commitment to privacy.

Filed under: Educational Technology, General, Instructional Technology

NERCOMP: Educational Technology in Professional and Executive Education: Afternoon Speakers

Extending the Student Experience: Alternate Delivery of Student Services, Using Course Platforms, Digital Content and Multimedia

Allison Harrington, Instructional Technology Designer, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Valerie Sutton, Director, Career Services Office, Harvard Graduate School of Education

The Challenge: One year master’s program, 42% of students entering have less than two years of work experience, students overwhelmed with decisions once they arrive on campus, career conversations need to start earlier so students can identify appropriate resources and courses for their professional path.

The Opportunity: Online workshop for incoming master’s students to help early identification of career interests/goals. The project goals are to facilitate curricular planning, classify and narrow extracurricular activities, identify Harvard resources to assist in curricular and career planning, smooth the progress of a one-year master’s program to full-time position within three months of graduation

Tiered approach: Facilitated workshop that is online at the beginning of August, prior to arrival on campus that is highly facilitate by Career Services staff. There is also a Self-pace workshop that is online, accessible anytime that is launched after the facilitated workshop to leverage facilitated workshop design and assets.

Roles: Project Lead/Stakeholder, Project Manager, Instructional Designer, Instructional Technologist, Subject Matter Expert(s) (SME), Course Facilitator(s), Technical Trainer, Technical Support (*one person may play multiple roles!)

Development Process:

1. Internal kick-off meeting: bi-weekly meetings scheduled for duration of project and tentative development schedule with milestone dates determined (which is refined after instructional design phase to account for asset development specifics)
2. Instructional design phase: completed a high-level design document including workshop objectives, breakdown of sessions, session objectives, and instructional activities and assignment. There is close collaboration between the SME, project lead and instructional designer.
3. Asset development phase: identification of digital assets based on instructional design (e.g., development of digital asset list; scope and mini project plan for each digital asset), content creations working in collaboration with SME’s, production of assets, quality assurance testing. There is close collaboration between project manager, instructional designer, instructional technologist, and SME’s. Things are both internally developed and outsourced.
4. Communication plan: Targeted communication sent to incoming master’s students with less than 2 years working experience. Students completed online registration form to express interest. First 25 participants selected to participate in pilot workshop. Follow-up communications sent to all integrated respondents alerting them to self-paced offering. Instructions sent to the registrants for the facilitated workshop
5. Course site creation/population/quality assurance testing: Leveraged instructional design to set up the architecture for the site, populated content on the site; added assets as completed, set up discussion boards and blogs, added instsructions for web conferencing sessions, proofread content, checked links, enrolled students. There is close collaboration between the project manager, project lead, instructional designer and instructional technologist.
6. Facilitator preparation: Creation of instructor and student guide. Facilitator training on delivery tools (e.g., discussion boards, blogs, web conferencing)
7. Launch!: Facilitated launched in August (28 students). Self-paced launched in mid-September (55 registrants to date)

Lessons Learned: Facilitated Module- Introductions (Web conferences for real-time relationship-building at the start), Timing (synchronous components with geographically dispersed students; planning for potential move/arrival on campus), Workload, Drop-out Rate, Content creation (Realistic expectations for quantity of content that can be developed in timeframe.)

Next Steps: Evaluation, focus group and longitudinal assessment; Additional content development for version 2; Next up: Virtual Career Days!

Example: Career Services Online Workshop

Filed under: Educational Technology, Instructional Technology , Educational Technology, executive education, NERCOMP

NERCOMP: Educational Technology in Professional and Executive Education: Panel Discussion

Best practices and lessons learned regarding the use of educational technology in professional and executive education

Carla Tishler, Director, Program Innovation, Harvard Business School

Twenty-four person department, part of larger IT organization. 900 students each year with 12 required courses for first-year students. There are 80 electives for second-year students. Executive education has four long programs, 70 + open enrollment courses annually. There are 60 custom programs for Fortune 500 companies. They have action learning resources, games and simulations, assessment tools, tutorials, delivery/support tools, web-based multi-media and learning networks.

Carla demos a case study of Threadless: The Business of Community.

Ken Martin, Manager, Instructional Technology Services, Harvard Law School

There are 1950 students , 460 staff and 170 faculty. There are 1650 JDs, 250 LL.M.s and 50 SJDs. There is a manager of Instructional Technology Services, a Legal Practice Management Systems Analyst, an Instructional Technologist and PITFs. They (we) strive to

• increase the appropriate adoption of learning technologies,
• support faculty in their adoption to their degree,
• fulfill needs with systemic solutions when possible,
• encourage broad use of best practices,
• sustainability, stability and trusted resource.

Challenges:

• raising awareness
• assessment
• developing competence and comfort
• time
• thinking about teaching
• “making the case” to lawyers

Core services: PITF program, MyHLS (course management, clinical program support, R&D, custom solutions, consulting and training and documentation.

Clinical programs: There are 15 faculty run programs, 6 student run programs and the number of student placements is approximately 800. They use case management software (time matters) and course sites. HLS students graduate with knowledge of law practice technologies.

HLS library – InfoAdvantage: to help faculty and students connect quickly with key information sources and collaborative effort between instructional technology and HLS reference librarians.

Tova Garcia Duby, Operations and ePlatform Manager, Babson College

They have a group of about 8 people on their team. 3-4 of those 8 are instructional designers. Most of the time is spent on what might be possible with teaching and how they can take it to the next level with technology. They support both the undergraduate and graduate level community. The fast track MBA program is blended meaning partially in the classroom and online.

Mike Krikonis, Academic Technologist, Clark University

There are three members on his team. They partner with the Publishing Consulting Group (PCG). The partnership is a blended MBS program offered by the Graduate School of Management. The curriculum focuses on “applied” skill building. One of the things they think about is ‘how do you get faculty to think about the transition to blended instruction’?

The supported technologies are:

• learning management systems
• web conference
• audio conference
• video conference
• streaming media

He reviews two projects:

1. “Video Vignettes: chapter based tutorials”: small scale video production, tablet PC with camtasia studio, windows streaming services, embedded links in Blackboard
   • didn’t want a talking head so the faculty member used a tablet pc and the lecture was recorded and then the video was edited with annotations of statistical concepts.
2. “PowerPoint Slides with audio annotations”: publisher provided slideshows, record narration tool
   • faculty could take their PowerPoint slides and record narration right within PPT.

Lessons Learned:

• faculty find it difficult to transition to online teaching
• students prefer the use of Webex and Raindance
• students prefer compressed course structure
• quantitative courses required more flexibility
• further growth of blended programs require more technical infrastructure

Gina Siesing, Associate Director for Educational Technology, Tufts University

Educational technology is within the Academic Technology Department within the main IT group (12 members in group). Their mission addresses educational and research needs within the schools. There are three campuses: Boston (medical, dental, science and policy and biomedical sciences), Grafton (veterinary medicine) and Medford/Somerville (engineering, fletcher school of law and diplomacy, arts & sciences and Tisch college for citizenship and public policy).

Core Services:

• Instructional Design
• Faculty Development
• Curriculum/ Program Design and Review
• Communication / Collaboration Tools
• VUE Concept & Content Mapping Tool
• Audience Response System
• Emerging Technologies R&D
• Rapid Solution Design & Development

Trends: Programs are conducting strategic planning (matching goals with curricula, and redesigning where needed [with technology where appropriate]), curriculum design and review processes, learning goals and outcomes assessment focus, scholarship of teaching and learning models and audience response systems.

Questions for Panel?

1. • Does any group have a governance body?
     • Tova Duby: get their strategic goals from Dean and faculty.
     • Carla Tishler: work directly with faculty and starting to develop a faculty advisory group
   • Metrics? Measurements?
     • Gina: in faculty development programs, speakers bring in tools so faculty can articulate “what is my hypothesis?” and how to conduct research and share with peers.
     • Tova Duby: Fast track is used for alot of cultural changes. After every course is taught, faculty come back and debrief with her team. There are also student surveys around usability and meeting expectations. Then work with managers of instructional design team to make real time changes to continue to enhance programs.

Filed under: Educational Technology, Instructional Technology , Educational Technology, executive education, NERCOMP

NERCOMP: Educational Technology in Professional and Executive Education: Second presenter

Understanding Adult Learners: The Implications of Adult Development Theory for Adult Learning:

Deborah Helsing, Ed.D. Change Leadership Group, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Needs of Adult Learners:

• constructivism: we actively make meaning of raw experience. We immediately find meaning in everything. They are interpretations, not necessarily the truth.
• development: general or regular growth patterns.
• an instrumental mind (stage 2): capacity for concrete thought, orients to explicit cause and effect (from experience) and is dualistic
• a socializing mind (stage 3): capacity for abstract thoughts, authority is external (living up to others expectations) and orients to inner states (reflect on inner feelings)
• a self-authoring mind (stage 4): authority is internal, conflict and critque as productive and responsible for and can regulate inner states.
• a inter-institutional mind (stage 5): orientation toward dialectical, paradoxical, underlying morals and values that precede social institutions and the sel as incomplete, in process, evolving.

The one thing we can count on is you can expect students within the entire range of stages. There are some differences between when comparing a full socio-economic spectrum versus those that are highly educated, but there is no way to determine that someone will be with a particular stage. Age is one of the least predictable indicators.

You need to confirm where the student is and then engage the growing edge for that person by asking the appropriate questions. Where are they in terms of the kind of support and challenge they need in order to grow.

Implications: an awareness of differences in developmental capacity allows us to:

• understand an important form of adult diversity
• help meet (and help others meet) adults’ different learning needs
• encourage adults’ continued growth

Filed under: Educational Technology, Instructional Technology , Adult Learning Theory, Instructional Technology, NERCOMP