1. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 The Madison DID © Integrating an Image Library into an Internet-based Teaching Tool for Art, Architecture and Beyond © Copyright Sharon P. Pitt, Christina B. Updike. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

2. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 This Presentation  will be available at http://cit.jmu.edu under the REPORTS link by 11/1/2001http://cit.jmu.edu

3. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 James Madison University  Current enrollment approximately 15,000  Comprehensive liberal arts  Mean SAT about 1170  70% Virginia students  90% freshman retention rate  80% six-year graduation rate

4. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 What is the Madison DID © ? The Madison Digital Image Database © is an online image database and multimedia instructional system designed to create and show Internet- based lectures using digitized images. The system permits instructors to generate, remotely, “slide shows”, which can be annotated, placed online for student study, or archived for testing or future use.

5. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 What’s so exciting about it? Though many image databases provide flexible faculty and student access to online images, those systems generally do not provide a tool via which faculty can teach and students can learn. The Madison DID © brings the digital image and data library into the teaching and learning process, in and outside the classroom.

6. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 MDID © Background  Project began in early 1997  Original system presented at EDUCAUSE 1999  Major redesign in 2000  Product available for free on October 10, 2001  Downloaded by over 40 colleges and universities across the U.S.  Working to create less restrictive license  Consideration of open source

7. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Why Digitize Images?  General  Preservation  Increased access to images and associated data  Online accessibility  JMU  Respond to increased student enrollment and course sections in new General Education program  Visual Resources Library projected its inability to meet demands of added course sections

8. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 MDID © Background  Project selection process  System components and demonstration  Project design  Expanding image and data content  Dealing with copyright  Instructional impact  Assessment results  Institutional impact  Organizational impact  Licensing and commercialization?  Lessons learned  Future

9. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Project Selection: Need  Increased student enrollment and increased course sections resulting from new General Education program  From 12 to 24 sections of survey of art courses  Additional 8 general art sections  Visual Resources Library projected its inability to meet demands  No staff to label, file or assist faculty for additional sections  Not enough slides  Slides degrading in quality  No additional storage space

10. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Project Selection: Grant Program  Competitive in-university grants program – mGrants  This project was awarded in the first year of the program, 1998  Cultivate instructional excellence through experimentation with new ideas, teaching methods and technologies

11. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Project Selection: Process  Advisory Council, made up of teaching faculty, representing all colleges of the university and the Office of Assessment and Research Studies  Deans appoint faculty representatives  Internal Review of CIT  Criteria Sheets and proposals reviewed by council members via individual quantitative, then group qualitative analysis

12. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Project Selection: Criteria  Need – Tremendous impact on School of Art and Art History by General Education program  Purpose – Create an image library and image viewing system  Impact – 20 faculty, 2000 students per year  Project Plan and Budget – Unrealistic  Evaluation – CIT, Office of Assessment and Research  Continued Use – Once underlying system developed, images from across the university could be searched and/or displayed in virtually any discipline

13. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 System Components  Images and Associated Data  Faculty owned slide collections  Visual Resources Library collections  Commercial image libraries (AMICO, Davis Art)  Slideshow Builder ©  Slideshow Viewer ©  ImageViewer ©  Catalog Editor ©  Administrative Tools

14. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Demonstration: The ImageViewer  Client-based, packaged application used in technology classrooms to display and teach with images in the classroom  High-bandwidth Access Only (usually on campus)  Faculty Only

15. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Demo: The Slideshow Viewer ©  Online, password protected lecture review system  Student Interface

16. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Demo: The Slideshow Builder ©  Online, password protected image search and selection system and lecture creation system, allowing faculty to develop and manage lectures anytime, anyplace  Faculty Interface

17. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Demo: The Catalog Editor ©  Maintaining the veracity of search data online  Visual Resources Curator/Librarian Interface

18. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Documentation: Help  Available within online system  Written in conjunction with Student Publications Group at JMU  Student receives an 2001 JMU writing contest award for Madison DID documentation, for TSC 409, an independent study in Technical and Scientific Communication

19. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 MDID © Administrative Tools  Online, password protected lecture administrative maintenance system  Managing Accounts  Sending email to all users

20. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Design and Production Tasks  Selecting images  Acquiring permission  Cataloging system  Produce online database  Produce client-based, multimedia teaching system  Scan Images  Remount and label slides for VRC  Edit images – content  Edit images – database  Train faculty  Evaluate/Assess  Ongoing maintenance costs

21. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Design Tasks - Future  Continue to assess faculty, student, administrative, and instructional needs  Determine and address student access and learning needs  Purchase & integrate commercial libraries (in addition to AMICO)  Expand an already viable cataloging and search system  Easier to use tools to integrate content  Developing better administrative tools

22. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Instructional Impact  Image preservation, integrity, accuracy  Faculty can always use the most accurate, highest resolution images (the “best” image)  Reduced administrative overhead in dealing with physical slides  Access is anytime, anyplace for faculty lecture development and student study and review  Enhances time management in and out of classroom (no more spelling)

23. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Instructional Impact  Image comparison, with all features of system  Details of images are always available  Data can be displayed with the image anytime  Annotations connect images and lecture notes  Dynamic content – movement of static content  Works can be viewed over time  Interdisciplinary exchange is encouraged  Art can be learned at a distance

24. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Assessment issues from 1999  Accuracy of information  Quality images--less download time vs. higher resolution  Ability to include instructor analysis/annotation  Better student navigation and display interface  Immediate archiving  Ability to print online slide shows/lectures  Give us MORE!

25. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Redesign in 2000  Based on 1998/99 assessment results, the MDID was redesigned. Additions included:  Review and correction of image data.  Annotation features to provide customized instructor comments  The ability to “archive” a lecture  The ability to print a lecture  The AMICO digital image library was added, expanding content base and usefulness of system by 65,000 images  Authentication via LDAP instead of email  Side-by-side image display

26. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Assessment – Spring 2001 Results  402 valid cases  All Survey of World Art Courses  Crosses eight faculty members

27. Student Technology Demographics (2001) QuestionResponse Do you own a computer?95.3%Yes 4.7%No Where do you usually access a computer?90.5%Home 3.8%Campus Lab 2.3%Roommate 2.3%Library.5%Friend Can you access the Internet from the computer you use most often? 98.2%Yes 1.8%No How often does your instructor use the ImageViewer © to show digital images? 85.2%Every class 4.5%Don’t Recall 5.8%1-2 month 4.0%Weekly

28. When digital images are projected in your class using the ImageViewer, how useful do you find the following features? 64.1% 72.8% 80.5% 49.1%

29. How useful do you find use of the MDID for…..? 94% 79.9% 80.7% 49.3%

30. QuestionResponse On average, how often did you view your instructor’s Slideshows outside of class? 48.5%1-2/month 31.8%1/week 10.9%several /week 7.7%rarely What is your primary reason for viewing the Slideshows outside of class? 87.3%Exam review 10.0%Understand the material Overall, how would you rate the quality of the online images of the SlideShows you accessed from outside of class? 61.6%Good 31.4%Excellent 4.7%Poor 1.0%Very Poor 1.0%N/A Overall, how would you rate the information provided for each image in the SlideShows you accessed from outside of class? 68.6%Good 20.4%Excellent 7.7%Poor 1.7%Very Poor 1.2%N/A

31. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments  “The DID was instrumental in helping me succeed on the mid-term. Without it, I would have felt completely lost, and wouldn’t have done nearly as well”  “The visual quality of the digital slides was 100% better than that of the 35mm slides. Also, the ability to zoom in and out allowed for a closer examination of the work and details. This is a great resource.”

32. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments  “I like the DID. If I didn’t have access to it I would fail every test. The print outs are nice because I can bring them to class and take notes on it.”  “I’m not sure how helpful the annotations are. I definitely get more by going to class.”  “The print views are poor quality and hard to see.”

33. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments  “Biggest benefits of DID are the enhancements of class discussion about artwork, and studying for exams.”  “The DID is great because it enables me to have course material at the click of a button. I don’t have to go track down pictures of paintings and sculptures that we study in class because they are online.”  “I love DID but it would be very handy if a student could use an option to type their notes into a personalized version.”

34. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Addressing Copyright  Faculty access presentations in unique password environment  Students access low resolution presentations in a unique password environment  Followed Educational Multimedia Fair Use Guidelines (developed at CONFU) as project development criteria  Incorporated individual faculty slide collections, with permission, into the database  Purchased commercially available digital image libraries and incorporated into the system

35. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Addressing Copyright  Maintain a license to AMICO (http://www.amico.org)http://www.amico.org  Incorporate AMICO images, a 75,000 art image library into system  Working to do the same with Davis Art Slides and other commercial companies

36. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Technology Transfer  Disclosure to Intellectual Property Committee  Establishment of institutional ownership of product  Formal go ahead to market product (5/2000)  Sale of Madison DID as a product  Whoa!

37. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Technology Transfer  Is this a contract or a sale?  How should funds from the sale be handled?  Is the university inappropriately using state resources to create a competitive, commercial product?  What is the institution’s technology transfer policy?  Establishment of IP Task Force to investigate and establish administration of IP at JMU  Tentative plan to acquire a commercial partner to commercialize MDID ©

38. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Technology Transfer  How should JMU seek a partner to commercialize a product?  Through an RFP process?  Establish a foundation?  Hire a consultant to market all products for the institution?

39. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Technology Transfer  How is the Madison DID © shared?  RFP process tried and failed  Decision to make available for free, not open source  As of October 10, free (with no support), to higher education at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfohttp://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo

40. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 MDID Registered Users include:  Mellon Foundation  Luna Imaging, Inc.  Microsoft Corporation  Saskia, Inc.  Yale University  Institute of Fine Arts  John Hopkins University  Gemological Institute of America  Indiana University  University of North Carolina  University of Michigan  University of Pittsburgh  Columbia University  Ohio University  University of California at Berkeley

41. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Technology Transfer  Legal Issues  Creation of license for commercial product  Permission from VA AG to hire a lawyer  Creation of license for free software  Acquisition of trademarks  Acquisition of copyrights  Less restrictive licensing  Possible creation of license for open source for online components of MDID ©

42. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Institutional Impact  Need a “decision algorithm” to further all innovative software development at JMU – IP Task Force  Change in University Intellectual Property Policy  Serious look at infrastructure for innovation  Seek additional funds (grant, foundation, corporate gifts, consortiums) to continue development of MDID ©

43. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Future Design Plans  Develop an easy-to-use system for faculty or librarian to add images and data to the system  Move to SQL (Microsoft Server) database  Consideration of open source licensing—meet the needs of 40+ institutions in U.S. more effectively

44. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Lessons Learned  There is a technology learning curve for faculty  There is a content learning curve for technology developers  Teaching and learning infrastructure is critical  Instructional design is an increasingly collaborative process, not only with faculty, which is inherent, but with technology organizations of the institution

45. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Keys to Success  Communication—Focus groups, meetings  Evaluation and assessment—keeps system relevant  Integration of content from large, commercial image library  Collaboration with classroom audio visual services and computing support to ensure appropriate infrastructure for system  Accuracy of images and data

46. EDUCAUSE, October 2001 Resources  MDID Information: http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfohttp://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo  AMICO: http://www.amico.orghttp://www.amico.org  Conference on Fair Use: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/ http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/  Sharon P. Pitt: Director, Instructional Technology and Distance Learning; pittsp@jmu.edupittsp@jmu.edu  Christina B. Updike: Visual Resources Specialist, School of Art and Art History; updikecb@jmu.eduupdikecb@jmu.edu

47. EDUCAUSE, October 2001  Craig Baugher: Scanning, Image Editing, Graphic Design  Jeff Butler: Image Editing, Video Production  Derek Carbonneau: Image Viewer, Project Management  Sarah Cheverton: Training, Help Documentation  Miriam Guthrie: GUI, Project Management, Assessment, Training  Kevin Hegg: Slide Show Builder, ImageViewer, Server Administration, Maintenance  Julia Harbeck: Assessment  Andreas Knab: Slide Show Builder, Madison DID Installer, Server Administration  Sharon Pitt: Project Management, Diplomacy, Administrative Marketing  Christina Updike: Search Criteria Development, Image Editing, SME