2010 Vision session notes 3

From openmichigan

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (14:18, 22 July 2015) (edit) (undo)
m (1 revision)
 

Current revision

Contents

[edit] dScribe

Anticipated Library Migration

  • Remember: dScribe workflow can be transferred to other processes (it is a workflow for efficiently clearing and evaluating copyright content)
  • Before move to Library takes place, Open.Michigan needs to assess how much time it takes to manage the dScribe process, what is working and what needs to be changed.
    • faculty commitment is known
    • with recomp, students' time commitments will change
    • unkown: Open.Michigan management
  • Much of the activity of Open.Michigan when it moves to the Library will be gathering and publishing OER.


dScribe for Students

Function

  • Dedicated time to get work done
  • Train (fun to engage with copyright, OER, OE, etc.)

Fall 2010

  • Meeting timeframe:
    • Three meetings: dScribe dedicated to getting work done
    • One meeting: broad event where everyone is invited, general openness and larger engagement activity
    • Launch dScribe for the fall with a fun meeting (combine with the dScribe pitch and invite dScribe alumni)
    • dScribe Entry point:
      • Interested student (students pitch to faculty) or interested faculty (pitch to class)


dScribe for Faculty

  • Use Retroactive clearing as gateway to faculty
  • Build advocates in departments and schools
  • Change process:
    1. Contact faculty
    2. give license to sign
    3. give background materials and DIY resources
    4. match with dScribe student


Re-Envisioning dScribe

(Capitalize on opportunities to engage community at volunteer level and as paid positions and internships)

Phases of the Process

  • Note: Develop DIY resources for each phase for both faculty and students and remember to point faculty to other organizations and services on campus that facilitate the process of creating courses openly
  1. First phase: retroactive clearing (using trained dScribe)
  2. Second phase: encouraging using open content in slides (openness in every day life in teaching; we do quick review of content: consultation; part time Copyright Specialists)
  3. Third phase: creating open courses (Open.Michigan staff to review and publish content)


dScribe agents

  • active dScribes (first time dScribes currently engaged in clearing content for a specific class)
  • active dScribe fellows (dScribes engaged in clearing content for a second or third class)
    • information literacy developed at this stage; less need for content expertise
  • dScribe alumni (inactive dScribes but still involved in Open.Michigan as trainers, presenters, or advocates)


Other Roles

  • dScribe clearer
  • Publishing assistant
    • Editing and publishing, especially at second and third phases
    • Issue of time consumption but necessary for quality assurance
  • dScribe Content Experts
    • important for first round of dScribe
    • specific subject expertise is important in some cases (e.g. Physics, Med School)

See also: Student Engagement Roles

Broken Links:

  • Faculty not giving us their slides
  • Software bugs
  • Recommendation Actions in OERca don’t match citation key
  • Ask form rarely used
  • PDFs instead of PPT
  • Faculty don’t receive DIY resources first
  • Better faculty permission forms
  • dScribe process begins after semester starts


Challenges:

  • Making copyright clearing seem fun to schools outside of the School of Information
  • Managing student expectations
  • Many faculty not satisfied with quality of image replacement: expectation disconnect


To Do

  • Repackage our message about dScribe to students and to faculty about what we are doing and what they are getting; educate about specific actions of the dScribe process.
  • Train SI students or dScribe alumni to conduct information and training workshops
    • What open education is
    • policy aspects of open education
  • Update dScribe roles and responsibilities documents
  • Need to better prepare students to give a OER/dScribe pitch to the faculty
  • Update RAD tree to correspond with legal and policy changes (and new citation key)
  • Engage Public Policy and Public Health (test out dScribe in a non-SI and non-UMMS environment)
  • Create dscribe alum page
  • dScribe paper
  • Use recomp with dScribes
  • Create FAQ for faculty
    • Online permission form is a great reference/starting point for a FAQ doc: [1]
  • Promote dScribe as progression (see: phases)
  • Create and employ internships at SI and other schools and departments

[edit] OERca

Questions of Functionality

  • Note: OERca is a useful tool but not fully functional and there is no better tool available yet.
  1. What functions are we missing that we need currently?
  2. What will or will not require a full rewrite of OERca?
  3. Who are users of OERca going to be a year from now?
    • U-M dScribes
    • dScribes at other institutions
  • Note: dScribes won’t have to use OERca but it will be a tool they can use; it is easy to train on and helpful for the person training and managing dScribes to be able to access and use OERca.
  1. Is the user community willing to support OERca?
    • Ror example: opencast
    • The cultivation of a user community will require discussion about copyright
  1. How much time can be reasonably committed to the development and maintenance of OERca?


Major Gaps *Recommended actions within OERca don’t match with citation key that we use. *Recomp adding citation tags

  • Permission forms links are missing: where are these going to live (Drupal? OERca?)
  • Title slide and citation key
  • Search images with OERca (we don’t yet have metadata about the images and metadata embedded in images)


How is OERca Currently Being Used?

  • As reference to see what previous dScribes have done
  • Quality Assurance review
  • Audit trail is very useful.
    • IP vetting is done by dScribe
    • Publishing Assistants review output of this
  • Saves time on M1/M2

(Recomp will save time when licenses are automatically added in title slide and when recommended actions match citation key/tags)

  • Africa OER Grant includes “installing OERca elsewhere” but no actual time or money is devoted to local development and maintenance.


Next Steps

  • Narrative about how to address Major Gaps
  • Determine how much time has to be spent and can be spent on reconciling these issues.
  • Maintain list of issues with OERca and put in JIRA
  • development on OERca becomes “20%” time (i.e. time in between other projects)
  • Needed: Institutional owner to build budgeting for development of OERca.

[edit] Drupal Migration

Priorities


High (within this calendar year)

  • Individual file management (metadata, deletion)
  • Documentation
  • Ratings of content
  • Comments on content
  • Very basic installation instructions (at same level as OERca instructions)


Medium (within this calendar year or later)

  • Packaging code for installation and reuse (technologists versus layman)
  • Image gallery
  • Reporting (need to define what this will look like)*


Low

  • video gallery?
  • initiative/project content type


Other

  • Importing content
    • Issues: Must define this well: need 1-2 very well defined formats
      • Concern over those creating content to be hosted by Open.Michigan
  • Be aware of maintenance needs of existing courses once we have a library
  • Housing Open.Michigan presentations (migration from wiki to drupal)


To Discuss

  • Access: who should have access to doing some of these things.
  • Adopting specific standards (i.e. metadata and how it is expressed)
  • Ways of packaging the code for a variety of users: issue of updates and new packages.
    • Can be viewed as the Open.Michigan publishing platform or as Drupal that runs the Open.Michigan publishing platform.
  • Do we want to try to create a community for further development (requires managing this community)?

[edit] Metrics and Evaluation

see: Open.Michigan Evaluation Metrics

Proto-Mission: Open.Michigan is a University of Michigan initiative dedicated to increasing knowledge sharing in the higher education community through encouraging/leading/fostering/building/facilitating/creating/developing an open culture.


Goals:

  1. Open the Academic Research, Teaching, and Learning Environment
  2. Facilitate the Production of Open Knowledge Artifacts
  • “Open content” or “learning materials” instead of artifacts
  • Other terms that would be more relevant to general audience
  1. Curate and Disseminate Open Knowledge Artifacts


A good mission statement includes

  1. Who do we serve
  2. What is our role in lives of benefit?
  3. What is the benefit to clients?
  4. What are we trying to accomplish?


End goal:

  • Promote and disseminate knowledge
    • How: through open
    • Where: U-M and higher
    • Why:
      • More eyes yields increased quality (e.g. open source)
      • More materials in commons promotes collaboration, creativity and standardization
      • Increased efficiency b/c build on existing


OPEN is...

  • 4 Rs (reuse, revise, remix, redistribute)
  • Transparency
  • Creative
  • Collaborative
  • Participatory


What is sharing?


*Publishing

    • Creating - production
    • Findable
    • Accessibility/usabilitiy


*Marketing/comm

  • Applicable (relevant)
  • Dissemination


What is Open.Michigan's knowledge?

  • Tacit and explicit
  • DIY resources
  • Courses, data, hardware
  • Research
  • Learning modules
  • Assessment tools
  • Software


What are we trying to accomplish?

  • Published materials
  • Faculty creation of learning
  • Improve student learning
  • Creating better prepared students
  • Increase research output in Michigan
  • Increase collaboration between Michigan higher education schools
  • Share own workflows in open: contribute to open movement
  • Be international model of open at a university (inc. sustainability)
  • Be local consultants of open (trainers, educators, publishers, publishers)


Short Term Goals

  • See dScribe to do list
  • Each staff to do Contextual inquiry eval of workflow
  • Each staff to do services pie (X% of time goes to X activity)


[edit] Open.Michigan at the Medical School

Phase One

  • Open.Michigan was established as a pilot
    • Who: Dean pre-Wolliscroft
    • When: Fall 2007


Current Advocacy models

    • Through Medical School faculty
    • Email campaigns: individual and mass campaigns through Dean
      • Obstacles: faculty ignore emails


M1/M2

  • Review goals of this project again to determine our end goal (what percentage of faculty participation is considered successful?)
  • Next step: connect with new Dean to complete this project


Gaps

  • Lecture capture
  • Using OER in the classroom
  • Clear learning objectives
  • Absence of a medical illustrator
  • Available staff time (30 hours between two staff members)


AHON Specific

  • Faculty involved in Hewlett grants
  • Students in rotations (MLRT, KNUST, SMS, M2 Research) involved in OER creation, distribution or demand


Questions

  • Histology
  • OpenMed


To Do

  • Almost finished with no-permission editing.
  • Expect 2-4 months of initial engagement with group 1 (3 departments not contacted yet)
  • Advocacy: Get more faculty participation using administrative advocates
  • Focus on publishing materials ready to publish but without final faculty permission
  • Finish trends analysis
  • Create list of images that may need to be redrawn
  • Goal: 1 sequence every two weeks (in terms of permission/editing)
  • Goal: 80 faculty published at end of 2010 (dependent on Raj)
  • Strip audio from the video from the videos that we already have in CTools
    • Hire/Get someone to quality check and edit this for publishing.
  • Add 5 more non M1/M2 OER modules
  • Solicit feedback on how OER is used (subtle)
    • UMMS OER in UMMS classrom (from faculty)
    • UMMS OER being used elsewhere (tell faculty)
  • Procure funds to hire another staff member to facilitate this process


Breakdown of Participating Faculty

  • 225 total on this project
  • Group 0: Not contacted: 40
  • Group 1: No permission, no response: 70-80 people
  • Group 2: Declined to participate: 9 people
  • Group 3: Response and no decision: 10-20 people
  • Group 4: Participating but no permissions (final review stage): 25
  • Group 5: Published: 55
  • Group 6: Participating: 80
  • About 10% response rate (higher now) to mass email campaign.
Retrieved from "http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/mediawiki/openmichigan/index.php/2010_Vision_session_notes_3"
Personal tools