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

2. OCW and Sakai Simple Assumptions – How would we do that?
OCW is a good idea – see Hal’s talk and JSB slides below
Sakai installations can/should become generators of OCW content on a very large scale – mutually beneficial to the academy and the OCW community
How would we do that?

3. Putting an OCW Pipeline in the LMS - OCW Publishing from SakaiUM
OCW
Web Site or
other
Institutional
Repository
Publication Pipeline
Digital Course Materials:
(1) IP Management
(2) Tagging OCW Categories
(3) Exporting from CTools
(4) QA and Review
eduCommons tools
Raw
Course
Content
Vetted
Teaching
Research
Focus on IP, OCW navigation categories, ease of movement to eduCommons workflow… then we’ll get more complicated
Initial MIT OCW process has difficulty scaling.
How can we support this process?

4. Sakai Resources Area – unorganized vis a vis OCW

5. Overall Goals (Vancouver)
Make Sakai an Open Educational Resources engine; a generator of OERs as OpenCourseWare sites
Make the process of OCW site generation economically feasible
Make it simple for faculty to tag and export their class materials to an OCW site
Couple Sakai and eduCommons (OCW site creation tool) to automate the process

6. Current Problems Too expensive to create OCW sites
Little or no automation
No connection to CLE (eg, Sakai)
Only large institutional commitment can get an OCW site off the ground
Roadblock to growing the OCW community

7. Sakai in Production Open Educational Resource Engines
Text
These are the sites that are running 24x7 with real user bases that are teaching significant number of classes. UM 9/04, IU 1/05, Yale 1/05, Foothill 4/2005, Rutgers 9/ Merced is starting with Sakai and nothing else classes a semester are taught at U Michigan alone. That’s 4000 this year alone. How much OER could this generate after a few years?
4000 courses each year at U Michigan alone; more at UNISA (U South Africa)

8. Overview of Process Based on Hybrid Publishing Model Integrated with MIT Teaching Process
Plan
Build
Teach/Manage
Publish
Upstream foundational prep
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
Content development
Collect/capture existing content
Build content into LMS sections/templates
Enter metadata
Create commissioned works
Process permission requests & make IP edits
Live teaching and course administration
Update/supplement materials
Post announcements
Assign, track, grade student work
Interact (faculty-student and student-student)
Open publication
Perform course QA
Obtain faculty approval
Export to OCW site
Support
Renewal, archiving, and preservation
Update course content
Archive course content
Color legend
BLACK Normal teaching process
BLUE Required for open publishing
ORANGE Former OCW steps eliminated
HYBRID INTEGRATED PROCESS
ARCHITECTURE OVERVIEW
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
External OCW Audiences
MIT Faculty & Teaching Assistants
Individual Teaching Web Sites
MIT-Supported LMS
OCW External Web Site
Dspace Archive
MIT-supported option
Assume 80% participation
- OR -
Individual/local supported option
Assume 20% participation
Robust authoring
Easy capture
Easy update
Document managemt
Restricted teaching matls
Open teaching matls
Import/export
Offline authoring
Self-publishing
Multiple views
Course admin
Teach
MIT Students
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
Archive
Harvest for archi ving or publishing
MIT’s slide - Start here, the process we are looking at, is it wrong to always return to MIT?

9. 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
Will use Creative Commons, plus some other options, such as choices desired by particular school, if they have any such choices…
OCW Tool

10. We Like MIT’s Hybrid Model a Lot (Atlanta)
Plan
Build
Teach/Manage
Publish
Open publication
Content development
Upstream foundational prep
Perform course Quality Assurance
Obtain faculty approval
Export to OCW site
Live teaching and course administration
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 existing content
Build content into LMS sections or templates
Enter metadata
Create commissioned works
Process permission requests & make IP edits
Update and supplement materials
Post to , wikis, blogs, announcements, discussions, forums, IM
Assign, track, grade student work
Interact (faculty-student and student-student) through all channels above
Removed the orange, those things currently done by MIT OCW team that they plan on NOT doing in hybrid model. Agree that they will go away, or be special cases. Add variety of content – wiki, blog, etc – that are generated in courses now; these show up again under “Interact” lower down.
BLACK Normal teaching process
BLUE Required for open publishing

11. All done within LMS faculty are already familiar with
Planning Phase Includes “Training” for Faculty and Support Staff in Colleges and Departments
Planning
&
Training
Build
Teach/Manage
Publish
Upstream foundational preparation
All done within LMS faculty are already familiar with
IP Object tracking comes along with the use of the system
Training has additional benefits in educating faculty on IP
Support staff distributed throughout university
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
How we view the hybrid model…

12. Teaching and Managing Course Materials
Build
Teach/Manage
Publish
All done within LMS faculty are already familiar with
IP Object tracking can proceed throughout course
Materials/Objects can be tagged with OCW categories (Syllabus, Lecture Notes, Assignments, etc.) wherever they come from, wiki, blog…
Increasingly, objects tagged by system, eg, Assignments
Collect existing content
Build content into LMS sections or templates
Enter metadata
Create commissioned works
Process permission requests & make IP edits
Update and supplement materials
Post to , wikis, blogs, announcements, discussions, forums, IM
Assign, track, grade student work
Interact (faculty-student and student-student) through all channels above
As we bring in more and more “tools” like the authoring and assignment or exam tool, more and more objects get auto-tagged.

13. Tagging Course Resources RDF tagging in the future

14. 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

15. Content Development and Teaching Proceed Throughout Course Period
Build
Teach/Manage
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

16. 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?

17. 3 Incentive Structures
Students
Administration
Faculty

18. 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?

19. 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

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

29. Think of OCW as Helping to Fill Out the Long Tail With Quality Material, and, dScribe Activities as Introducing People in the Academy to Models of Mentoring That are Fundamentally Participatory, as OS Models Are

30. Long Tail of Education Why fill it up Where a lot of the action is
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

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

32. Higher Education Institutions and OCW Community - Both Benefit
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

33. Why Do OCW? 3 Incentive Structures for Adoption
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. 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

35. 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 S-OCW tool
And cracking the last nut of sustainability – cost

36. 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, 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

37. 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)

38. “dScribes” at U Toronto
Potential example of ‘student volunteerism’ on scale we need
The University of Toronto engages hundreds of students each semester to take notes for classes, those notes then are put online and used to support accessibility to the course materials for those who need them (like hearing or sight impaired students). 
The students are recruited and trained each semester – largely by each other; some staff, but not much
Is this an existence proof for the idea of large dScribe communities at universities? Maybe.

39. Baseline & Investigation of Benefits vs Incentives UMichigan 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).

40. Student

41. Student

42. Student

43. Student

44. Student

45. Student

46. Faculty

47. Faculty

48. Faculty

49. Faculty

50. Faculty

51. Faculty

52. Focus Groups – Incentives vs Benefits
Often talk about value/benefits to faculty and administration
Usually list benefits for students
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

55. 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

56. dScribes and Tools
Going back and thinking about a collaborative material production process
Work in progress
Development on a dScribe tool underway this summer
Hope to use this fall with first-generation dScribe2 students leading the process, and mentoring dScribe1 students
This winter plan to have first large dScribe1 class as part of SI grad/undergrad curriculum
Go from there

57. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

58. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

59. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

60. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

61. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

62. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

63. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

64. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

65. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

66. Some V~0.3 Screenshots

67. dScribes and OCW tool
Building social foundations of technology applications, integrating the two into socio-technical process
Blending Open Source successes with Open Content Initiatives
Mobilizing transformative processes of Web 2.0 dynamics in service of transforming the academy,
While at the same time using resulting contributions from the academy to feed Learning Web 2.0 dynamics
Developing positive feedback loop that rewards participatory pedagogies and drives both transformation in the academy and the growth of Learning Web 2.0
OER/OCW generation at the center of both

68. Must Reads

69. and, for pedagogical foundations (and fun summer reading)

70. Thanks - Quex