1. Context & Common Issues - Quality Control - Dissemination - Sustainability Institutions invest in developing instructional software without provisions for: Lack of quality, interactive, web-based learning materials Faculty often work in isolation while developing online courses

2. M E R L O TM E R L O T Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching

3. What is ? MERLOT’s mission is to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning by expanding the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed online learning materials that can be easily incorporated into faculty designed courses. M E R L O TM E R L O T

4. Faculty are, and should remain, in control of the teaching/learning process. Faculty-led peer review processes are the key to expanding the use and effectiveness of digital learning materials. Assumptions M E R L O TM E R L O T States, systems, consortia, and individual institutions can collectively learn and share with each other, thus maximizing their investments in instructional IT. Faculty want and deserve better mechanisms to document their contributions to teaching and learning.

5. Major Activities Result High Quality Learning Components Support for Faculty Development M E R L O TM E R L O T Track & Assess Usage Develop Discipline Communities Post/Host Learning Components Review & Assess Learning Components Solicit Learning Components

6. A Taste of M E R L O TM E R L O T

7. Educators Authors Reviewers Faculty Support M E R L O TM E R L O T Perspectives

8. Scenario 1: Intro physics class is in 20 minutes Topic: Random motion of gas atoms Temperature and pressure Need: Visual demonstration of topic Bonus: Student access to demo

9. Scenario 2: Preparation for Fall Semester Course Topics: Classical mechanics, fluids Waves and oscillations Needs: Class demonstrations Interactive homework Advanced topics & readings Supplemental material

10. Solutions http://www.merlot.org

11. Users’ Needs Ease of Use Quick, reliable, efficient searches Standard topic organization Added Value One-stop shopping Testing and reviews of material Examples of material use Feedback Contact with authors, reviewers, users

12. Authors’ Perspective Scholarly Recognition Basis for tenure/promotion/retention Standards and quality control Advertisements, break the “N. I. H.” syndrome Feedback Correct existing errors Recommendations for upgraded material New ideas

13. Authors’ Comments “...so I think the MERLOT approach is great, no matter how cumbersome the initial steps are…” “I have been on a crusade for 3 years with the professional societies to host a peer reviewed curriculum web server but alas, they a) didn't grok and b) didn't care…” “I am interested in MERLOT. What you are doing looks great.” “… I think the site is a very valuable resource for science educators. I look forward to benefiting from and contributing to the site as a member.”

14. Reviewers’ Perspective Dread So much to do, so few people MERLOT is premature Enthusiasm Developing standards where none exist Recognizing areas of need Providing feedback to authors

15. Building Discipline Communities USERSREVIEWERS AUTHORS Professional Societies

16. Faculty Development/Support A way to reach the “other 80%” –Ease of use –Reduce time commitment –Lessen the demands on local support staff

17. MERLOT Software Overview Online Community Starter Kit (OCSK) Continuous Improvement Process Development Team Future Directions

18. Online Community Starter Kit Allows groups to build their own “online communities” Provides for connecting “communities” Runs on a variety of platforms Can handle heavy traffic Relatively easy to start up Is modifiable, given the right expertise

19. Robust & Scaleable Technology Multiple OCSKs on one server Category scheme unifies separate sites Automated link checking

20. Based on Open Standards Library of Congress categories IMS metadata Java Servlets, HTML, JavaScript Database: SQL, JDBC OS: Unix, NT, Mac OSX

21. Continuous Improvement Process Dialog with individuals/groups to clarify needs, possible options Prototype/test solutions offline Usability testing Monitor discipline groups and MERLOT “feedback” link for user needs/issues

22. OCSK Development Team Manager Programmer Designer Librarian Center for Usability in Design and Assessment

23. Future Directions Bring up the discipline sites Improve browsing by subject Allow for multiple categorization of materials Simplify the home page design Expand the number of item types

24. More Than a Collection of URLs M E R L O TM E R L O T Engaging Faculty in Discipline-Based Evaluation & Use of Online Learning Materials Providing Tools and Processes to Ensure Teaching-Learning Success Managing Our Collaboration

25. Schedule of Participant Activities Meetings Date Location Project Directors Meeting July 17-18, 2000 Denver Discipline Leader Training August 22-23, 2000 Salt Lake Discipline Group Faculty September 14-16, 2000 Nashville Faculty Developers November, 2000 Ann Arbor All Advisory Boards January 30-31, 2001 New Orleans MERLOT National Conference August, 8-11, 2001 Tampa All Advisory Boards January, 26-28, 2002San Diego MERLOT National Conference September, 26-30, 2002 Atlanta

26. Conducting Peer Reviews September workshop for faculty learning how to perform peer reviews: Adopting evaluation standards - quality of content - potential effectiveness for teaching-learning - ease of use Developing their peer review process Understanding their roles and responsibilities as MERLOT reviewers

27. Bringing MERLOT Home November workshop for your faculty development personnel: How to use MERLOT to achieve your institution’s academic technology goals - peer review processes - guidelines for online learning assignments - guidelines for online communications - guidelines for engaging faculty with MERLOT

28. Continuous Improvement Advisory meetings of project directors and discipline co-leaders at EDUCAUSE/NLII in January: Progress reports Continued planning Issues resolution

29. National MERLOT Meeting Sharing lessons learned and inviting more faculty to learn about MERLOT. Reports from: MERLOT administrative group MERLOT project directors Discipline communities Individual faculty reviewers

30. The Vision MERLOT will be the place where faculty from around the world will share learning materials and pedagogy

31. Organizing Principles The MERLOT community will be built upon the principle of open exchange of ideas. The goal will be to develop a sustainable business model that will maintain free or low-cost access to end-users.

32. MERLOT “Ecosystem” Legend Existing members Potential members Grant-Making Organisations University Systems Sponsors Partners Advertisers Professional organizations Faculty members Individual institutions Students M E R L O TM E R L O T Staff

33. Critical Success Factors Conducting peer reviews that are credible and add value Maintaining free or low-cost access to end-users Sustaining in-kind contributions from participants Using grants and sponsorships to expand scope (The “NPR” Model) Making connections to discipline associations

34. .’ s Evolution: 3 Stages To create a governing board To hire a CEO To recruit 16 new members To secure start-up funds Phase 1: Start-up Characteristics MERLOT is moving to an independent status Employees will play multiple roles until Merlot is fully staffed Reliant on founding organizations for support Objectives Timeframe Present - Early 2001 To elevate user base to higher volumes To circulate credible peer reviews To attract new customers & build brand recognition To broaden membership base and host content Characteristics MERLOT develops strong marketing presence Aggressively recruit staff, including management Structure is established and employee roles are defined Objectives Phase 2: Development Timeframe 2001-2002 To generate a substantial amount of traffic To attract revenues from advertisers, including corporate entities To enable users to access a range of products and services via MERLOT’s ecosystem Characteristics MERLOT is “the place” for faculty who care about teaching and learning. Greater organizational self- sufficiency Objectives Phase 3:Self- Sufficiency Timeframe 2003 - Beyond Source: MERLOT data, PwC Analysis. M E R L O TM E R L O T

35. Funding sources that could potentially consider …. Philanthropic and corporate grants represent a natural starting point for not-for-profit funding Summary Conclusions Leverage founding member contributions and enable individual faculty to contribute content Provide revenue, but may not cover costs Scalable, and facilitate projection of revenues; may extend to faculty and students High traffic volume will drive substantial revenues Allows differentiation from rivals, but may lead MERLOT away from core mission 6) Value-added services (e.g. training, consulting) 1) Philanthropic and corporate grants Potential Funding Sources 2) In-kind contributions 3) Meetings and conferences 4) Memberships 5) Advertising & Sponsorships M E R L O TM E R L O T

36. Organization & Staffing Model Phase II: “Development” Early 2001 Board of Directors Administrative Advisory Group Executive Assistant Administration External Relations Programs IT budget, G/L HR financial reporting member relations strategic alliances marketing coordination of review panels faculty development content mgmt & development programming design maintenance M E R L O TM E R L O T CEO Faculty Advisory Group Faculty Advisory Group

37. MERLOT Discipline Groups Biology Physics Teacher Ed Business Information Technology Chemistry Psychology Health Sciences History Languages Math Music Engineering

38. Participation Agreement Faculty Compensation Suggest 3 units of reassigned time or stipend for 7 group members Suggest 1/2 time reassigned time for 1 co-leader Travel expenses to MERLOT events (see schedule of activities)

39. Participation Agreement Intellectual Property Rights to learning materials remain with their owners Rights to use ratings, reviews, and assignments assigned to MERLOT Participant must secure consent from faculty for MERLOT to use the ratings, reviews, and assignments

40. Participant Selection Criteria Demonstration of clear commitment to the project Alignment with system or institutional priorities Plans to integrate MERLOT within existing initiatives Diversity of organizational type and size Applicants in excess of slots will be phased in at later date

41. Key Benefits to Participation Your MERLOT: Participants maximize MERLOT’s benefits by shaping it to fit their needs Faculty Development: Provides faculty with powerful instructional technology resource and documents contributions to teaching Online Teaching and Learning: Increases institutional focus on online teaching and learning

42. Key Benefits to Participation Leveraging Resources: By joining a collaborative environment, participants benefit from the work of many faculty IT Investments: Provides guidelines to institutions for their instructional technology investments