OCWtool and dScribes – Pedagogy, Social Practices, and Tools

1. OCWtool and dScribes – Pedagogy, Social Practices, and Tools What a long, strange trip it’s being

2. OCW and Sakai Simple Assumptions – OCW is a good idea CMS/VLE installations (like Sakai, Moodle, ATutor, etc) can/should become generators of OCW content on a very large scale This must be mutually beneficial to the academy and the OCW community How would we do that?

3. Situate OER collections not as distinct from the courseware environment for the formally enrolled students but as a low marginal cost derivative of the routinely used course preparation and management systems. A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities – Atkins, Brown, Hammond

4. Publication Pipeline Digital Course Materials: (1) IP Management (2) Tagging OCW Categories (3) Exporting from CTools (4) QA and Review eduCommons tools UM OCW Web Site or other Institutional Repository Teaching Research Raw Course Content Vetted OCW Content Sakai Putting an OCW Pipeline in the LMS - OCW Publishing from Sakai Initial MIT OCW process is a heavyweight process. How can we make this process more lightweight?

5. Sakai in ProductionOpen Educational Resource Engines Text 4000 courses each year at U Michigan alone; more at UNISA (U South Africa)

6. Overview of ProcessBased on Hybrid Publishing ModelIntegrated with MIT Teaching Process Plan Build Teach/Manage Publish Support Upstream foundational prep Content development Live teaching and course administration Open publication Renewal, archiving, and preservation • Recruit faculty • Plan TEACHING version of course • Plan OCW version of course • Review existing content • Identify & resolve IP (except permissions) • Track IP by object in system • Collect/capture existing content • Build content into LMS sections/templates • Enter metadata • Create commissioned works • Process permission requests & make IP edits • Update/supplement materials • Post announcements • Assign, track, grade student work • Interact (faculty-student and student-student) • Perform course QA • Obtain faculty approval • Export to OCW site • Update course content • Archive course content HYBRID INTEGRATED PROCESS Color legend BLACK Normal teaching process BLUE Required for open publishing ORANGE Former OCW steps eliminated • Spec course/map content • Reformat/clean up/ restructure/contextualize • Enter content into CMS • Perform authoring QA • Perform final edit • Perform production QA • Respond to user feedback • Review/refine metadata (MIT Library) • Edit course for errors ELIMINATED STEPS MIT-Supported LMS Archive MIT-supported option Assume 80% participation Dspace Archive • Robust authoring • Easy capture • Easy update • Document managemt • Restricted teaching matls • Open teaching matls • Import/export • Offline authoring • Self-publishing • Multiple views • Course admin • Publishing tools • Embedded tracking code • Embedded license terms • IP tracking • Metadata tagging • Hi-design display templates • Preview capability • Downloadable ZIP files • Discussion group suppt • Archiving • Workflow ExternalOCWAudiences Publish OCW External Web Site ARCHITECTURE OVERVIEW MIT Faculty & Teaching Assistants - OR - Teach MITStudents Harvest for archi ving or publishing Individual/local supported option Assume 20% participation Individual Teaching Web Sites

7. OCW Tool – Support for the Hybrid Process • Support for Tagging in Sakai – • Helping faculty, students create tags (metadata) for: • IP status – Creative Commons+ • OCW Navigation – MIT Categories • Export – Choose what to put on • OCW site OCW Tool

8. Tagging Course Resources RDF tagging in the future

9. Add or remove tags within specific site User can modify tags to fit their needs – But start with MIT tag set to encourage standard approach to navigation of resulting OCW site

10. Build Teach/Manage Content Development and Teaching Proceed Throughout Course Period This is a dynamic, emergent, iterative process • Take advantage of that – OCW Tool is available to add tags anytime in development or teaching • Capture IP and OCW category metadata as class proceeds, as new material is developed • Perhaps have a student ‘scribe’ who has permissions set to add metadata – when new document appears, they tag it – perhaps make this a class activity, develop student incentives (e.g., better future access) • Have system flag incomplete data on objects – direct faculty or students to places of needed metadata

11. How Do We Get This Done? • This currently costs MIT ~$10-20,000 per course • We can get some faculty to do it • But we need to get adoption supported by the administration, at first or eventually – top-down and/or bottom-up • And we need to support the faculty • How do we do all this?

12. 3 Incentive Structures Students Administration Faculty

13. 3 Incentive Structures for Adoption • Administration – why Chuck Vest adopted OCW, modified for non-first-movers, with local context added… why department heads… • Faculty – why your faculty would adopt, for exposure, then student demand… • Students – all the reasons on the following slide All 3 have initial, then self- and mutually-reinforcing aspects as the system becomes embedded, woven into fabric of university - similar to adoption of Sakai/CLE in the first place Can we build any of these, or other, incentives into the software?

14. Digital Scribes Basic idea – get students to help the faculty in courses they are taking – students become digital scribes – DScribes – and get access rights to OCW tool area, taking part of load off faculty Leveraging the students’ interests, creating student incentives Developing student incentives: (emerging list) Do to get access to course material in the future; Do to get closer access to TA’s and teachers; Become part of the online DScribe community; Do for the greater good; Do to learn better; Get a Tshirt; etc… 1 hour course credit for UG DScribes – learn a bit about IP, media management, how to use tools 3 hour course for Grad DScribes II – leveraging interest among SI students – more complete coverage of IP, multimedia, lecture capture, synopsizing, notes project – general ‘lite editing for web’ Goal of having the DScribes provide much of the ongoing infrastructure for the actual cleaning, tagging and preparing for export – two tiered: DS II’s help DS’s – maybe GSI’s, alumni

15. But, we hadn’t really looked hard enough at students (especially students), faculty and the teaching-learning process in the web eraSo, by way of working with students in my SI 514 ‘semantic tech and OCW’ class this past winter/spring, where we talked about these things… …a few moments with John Seely-Brown, Chris Anderson and some thoughts on emerging pedagogies.

23. Students as Co-Producers • Emphasizes Mentor/Apprentice relationships • Participants in learning process • Not jugs to be filled up with knowledge • Provides value to faculty – students know the tech • Think of as a ‘Participatory Pedagogy’

24. Long Tail of Education Why fill it up • Where a lot of the action is • Where our faculties’ passions are • What you want is probably there • Personalization of learning examples and objects largely happen in the tail What about the head • Future Learning Environment has both – well populated head and tail – to date we’ve mostly discussed the head

25. Think about OCW as helping to fill out the long tailand,dScribe activities as helping to do that, and at the same time,encouraging people in the academy with models of mentoring that are fundamentally participatory, as OS and peer production models are.

26. Because, really • We’re here to change learning • Use the generation of OCW to change learning so we can generate OCW more easily; then use that OCW we generated to attract more faculty/students to open learning practices; then … • We’re interested in revolutionizing our institutions – transforming them

27. Changing Education OER are understood to be an important element of policies that want to leverage education and lifelong learning for the knowledge economy and society. However, OLCOS emphasizes that it is crucial to also promote innovation and change in educational practices. In particular, OLCOS warns that delivering OER to the still dominant model of teacher centred knowledge transfer will have little effect on equipping teachers, students and workers with the competences, knowledge and skills to participate successfully in the knowledge economy and society. Open Educational Practices and Resources - OLCOS.org

28. HE Institutions Meeting needs of HE - for innovation and adoption of emerging methods Increases importance of teaching in HE – contributes to re-balancing vs research Creating virtuous cycles in HE institutions, and outside – publish, feedback, improvements, re-publish…thus, Showing the importance of “Open” in/to HE – introduction to web 2.0 dynamics in education Bridging formal and informal ed – classroom and self-learners OCW Communities Mobilizing our established communities of scholars Best place, in ways only place, for generation of enough material to fill the long tail Universities are one place where the mentors are…we are teachers Showing the importance of “Open” in/to HE – introduction of web 2.0 dynamics in education Bridging formal and informal ed – classroom and self-learners Higher Education Institutions and OCW Community -Both Benefit

29. Digital Scribes – making this work Basic idea – students help the faculty in courses they are taking – students become digital scribes – dScribes – get access rights to OCW tool area, taking large part of load off faculty Why would students do this? – (see following early research) Leveraging the students’ interests, creating student incentives: Developing student incentives: (emerging list) Do to get access to course material in the future; Do to get closer access to TA’s and teachers; Become part of the online dScribe community; Do for the greater good; Do to learn better; Get a Tshirt; etc… 1 hour course credit for UG dScribes – learn a bit about IP, media management, how to use tools 3 hour course for Grad dScribes II – leveraging interest among SI students – more complete coverage of IP, multimedia, lecture capture, synopsizing, notes project – general ‘lite editing for web’ Goal of having the dScribes provide much of the ongoing infrastructure for the actual cleaning, tagging and preparing for export, using the tools – two tiered: dS II’s help dS’s – maybe GSI’s, alumni in future

30. Students as Apprentices and Co-Participants in Teaching/Learning • What happens when we encourage, support and integrate student efforts, as we are in the dScribe/OCW project • We are encouraging both students and faculty to engage in more participatory pedagogies • The faculty (and admin) incentives we know a good bit about • The students’ incentives we don’t know much about, but they have, and quickly recognize they have, multiple, significant positive incentives • This mobilization of new incentive structures parallels results of the recent research done on open source (see S. Weber), which shows that complex artifacts can be constructed by distributed communities, with unexpected incentive structures, in an open environment • Investigating such alternative incentive structures is driving the social part of the development of the dScribes tool • And cracking that hard nut of sustainability – cost

31. dScribes • Catalyzing new relationships between faculty and students and among students – institutionalizing collaborative apprenticeships at the earliest possible level • Finding places the students can become “peers in the process,” can become contributors, e.g., using their ‘digital native’ tech knowledge and experience • Introducing faculty gently, in the process of their teaching, to new (digital/social) technologies and their use, with the help of the students • New partnership construction in the academy • Practical engagement as a part of learning at all levels, building it into the learning process – Dewey would be pleased

32. Building a dScribe Community -Building into a Curriculum • What a student might do if taking the 1-credit OCW dScribe class: --Learn about IP issues related to making course materials available--Learn about useful metadata standards relevant to open courseware (eg, marking up citations to enable use of open URL resolvers; ).--Publish a course they are taking - work with faculty to --get permissions; generate substitutions where necessary  --mark up citations; perhaps find open versions  --tag materials, using MIT's navigation categories, or faculty’s • What students might do in a 3-credit SI 501 dScribe class: --Go into more depth on IP, metadata issues above --Learn about effective, easy, low-touch capture, production, editing of A/V, include screencasts, podcasts, videocasts of lectures, discussions--Learn about appropriate techniques for capturing different types of events, from interviews to lectures to conferences, includes setting up wikis or other tools for distributed capture of events and their activities --Mentor students taking the 1-credit OCW dScribing class – to Learn, Teach --Act as dScribe for some of their own classes, and for professional event (e.g., a conference)

33. OCW – Inter-related incentive structures • Administration – why Chuck Vest adopted OCW, modified for non-”first-movers”, with local context added. Why Provosts, Deans, Department Heads… • Faculty – why your faculty would adopt – e.g., for exposure, then student demand, new form of publication, build into evaluations… • Students – see following slides… All 3 have initial, then self- and mutually-reinforcing aspects as the system becomes embedded, woven into the fabric of university – sometimes similar to adoption of Sakai/CLE in the first place

34. Baseline & Investigation of Benefits vs IncentivesUMichigan Survey – April 2007 • All instructional faculty, including graduate student instructors, were invited to respond (n=7,244). There was a 20% response rate to the survey (n=1,481). • A random sample of 25% of the student body, stratified by college/department, was invited to respond (n=8,790). There was a 26% response rate to the survey (n=2,281).

35. Student

36. Student

37. Student

38. Student

39. Student

40. Student

41. Faculty

42. Faculty

43. Faculty

44. Faculty

45. Faculty

46. Faculty

47. Focus Groups – Incentives vs Benefits • Often talk about value/benefits to faculty and administration • Usually list benefits of OCW use for students – not incentives to create OCW • Results of focus groups at UM • Students see incentives to help generate OCW, and the highest incentives do not necessarily line up with usually cited benefits – they have more to do with interaction with faculty, and deepening pedagogical relationships – that mentor-apprentice relationship

49. “Lindsey quex”

50. Tools for dScribes • Workflow customized for dScribes and faculty, not ‘professional OCW’ staff • Build around ‘participatory pedagogical’ model • Faculty engagement gated, can be large or small (faculty can be their own dScribes) • Tools integrated with learning environment, so faculty can use knowledge from CLE tools • Create portable materials for faculty and students, and Library