2010 Vision session notes 2

From openmichigan

---

Revision as of 11:49, 20 October 2011

Contents 1 Session Two Agenda 2 Library Integration 3 Video Copyright Policy 4 Engagement

Session Two Agenda

• Library integration
• Lecture capture
• Engagement strategies (advisory group and student engagement)
• dScribe

Library Integration

• Within 6 months to one year we anticipate part or all of Open.Michigan will move into MPublishing.
• What do we want Open.Michigan to look like in the Library?
  • First steps:
    • contact and connect with library staff
    • shift focus to entire University community
• Publishing goals will not necessarily be determined by Library.

Constraints at UMMS

• Lack of U-M visibility
• Top-down incentive structure
• Uncooperative culture
  • Perception of Open.Michigan’s resources (as compared to the rest of the University)
• Tension between OER production and “openness” education and outreach

Gains (Ideals) of move to Library

• Access to expertise
• Metadata (search and discovery). Note: OER platform may still be on med school server for first year, but we can still seek expert advice rather than development support.
  • search engine optimization (SEO)
• Visibility on Library portal
• Access to Library's communications plan, strategy and channels of communication
• Access to user experience group
• Production level systems team
• Central to U-M and associated with a neutral entity (the Library)
• Embedded in larger unit with similar values and goals (eg. Copyright Office, SPO, etc.)

Concerns with move to Library

• Loss of autonomy in the decision making process
• Loss of control of creating and sending our message
• Loss of agility (bureaucracy)
• Disconnect between research on OER/Open Ed and OER production (Hewlett Project and Med School OER projects are staying with the Med School)
• Uncertainty over staffing of Open.Michigan
• Where will our Africa OER project be housed?w
• What level of attention will Med School get with Open.Michigan moves to Library?
• Can Open.Michigan scale to University level service as predicted?
• Tacit knowledge transfer when Open.Michigan moves into the Library: embedded in current staff about Open.Michigan activities and history
• What are the expectations of the Library of Open.Michigan? (e.g. dScribe, our services, etc.)

Wrap Up Discussion

• Initial feedback provided with very practical concerns about operational costs and physical space
• Edited Report will be discussed at Dean and Associate Dean upcoming meeting, anticipated in late September
• Anticipated decision in January with written application in February as follows the budget writing cycle.
• Anticipated that the Library will accepted nearly all facets of the current Open.Michigan model if it chooses to approve this move.

Video Copyright Policy

Agenda

• Lecture Capture Landscape
• Editing and Production Services
• Standards and specifications: publishing, production, distribution (flash versus html5) uploading video
• DIY component of publishing
• Current activities and barriers at Open.Michigan

Lecture Capture Landscape

Existing Units on Campus

• Med School capture service
• CARMA (expensive)
• DMC
• Dentistry

Notes:

• DMC committee looking at lecture capture from last 9 months
  • Goals: determine issues with different schools doing different types of lecture capture; establish functional centralized service options; anticipated requirement of openly licensing content.
• ITS looking into video management (storage) system
  • RFI initiated and will be putting out call for proposal (not Blue Stream)
  • ITS and Library may be collaborating on this project
• Med School has its own lecture capture group (student operated) [1]
• Dentistry: all classrooms have Podcast Producer set up for lecture capture and publication to secure iTunesU site

Editing and Production Services

Work flow

If Open.Michigan doesn't have policy in place that declares lecture slides fair use:

1. get a license
2. clear slides before video
3. communicate with capture service or post production of video
4. post-production services
   1. Editing, formatting
   2. Who is responsible for paying for these services?
   3. Issues of accessibility
5. Review and Quality Control
6. Determine hosting, metadata and distribution

Official Clearing Process for Podcasts or Videos with Slides

1. Open.Michigan selects which video capture service we support
2. Open.Michigan provides consulting services about how to clear video.
3. Open.Michigan does not do the actual video editing – the dScribe or author would have to edit the video.
4. Open.Michigan provides a OER certified stamp for videos published

Standards and Specifications

Types of Video

• Back of the room++
  • lower quality; can see slides in background but not usually in focus
• Slides + voice++
• Semi-studio (2 cameras)
• Audio only

• Documentaries+
• Creative films+

• Personal recordings (Camtasia)

• Animations
• Live, streaming video

+Issues: documentaries and creative films can’t easily be retroactively cleared: we have to trust that the creator has cleared the content

• • Can we create a checklist or guide for these makers to use?
  • Open.MIchigan tactic: employ fair use licenses.

++Currently we see most of these forms of capture. Back of the room video capture is not a preferred system.

Current opportunities and barriers at Open.Michigan

Opportunities

• If most of the videos are slides + voice, our current policies aren’t affected as much as with other video capture formats.
• Back of the Room and Semi-Studio: can often use fair use claim for copyright
• Documentaries and film: DIY guides (implication that we will still review these materials)

Barriers

• Slides + voice, personal recordings: need to be pre-cleared and DIY guides.
• Need to impose a blanket policy: anything that goes on Open.Michigan's, we review.
• We don’t want to offer post-production clearing.
• Putting the work back onto the creator to clear content.

Reminder of draft video policy from 2009 [see spectrum graphic and graph: not yet inserted 9/7/10 eppr]

Engagement

To define and communicate our goals

Advisory Group Faculty and students (possibly staff, possibly alumni) to give guidance to Open.Michigan regarding its activities, our processes and appropriate engagement of our community.

Goals for founding an advisory committee:

• Legitimacy
• Foster connections
• Ambassadors who raise awareness of OER
• Time commitment (not asking for more than once a year - low time commitment)
• Advisory

Follow up:

• Student and alumni advisory board (future discussion)
• How can Open.Michigan better service faculty
• How big? (8 - 15)

dScribe

Currently our largest engagement method for staff and faculty. See: Vision session notes 3

Students

• Need a mulit-level strategy for engaging students on a general level.
  • dScribe might be too much for one student and not enough for another.

Students Need:

1. consistency
2. persistence
3. no accountability
4. interesting topics, ideas
5. fun
6. tangible results and benefits
7. to trust Open.Michigan

Engagement Ideas:

• Different formats or themes for a series of events
  • poetry, video, writing
• Sensitivity to time commitment: perceived vs. actual
  • piggyback on existing activities
    • GROCS
    • Design Lab 1
    • Annette Haines School of Art - Senior Design Seminar

Group/Space tie-ins and presence:

• CIC
• RC
• SERVE
• NPOWERED
• North Quad
• UGLi
• DMC

Levels of Engagement:

1. Entry level (interest)

Including: awareness raising events and information sessions

• • Target freshmen and sophomores
  • dScribe
  • copynight
  • student advocacy group (free culture)
  • guest speaker, speaker series
  • brown bag

1. Mid level

Including: one-off activity, time commitment, work product

• • design jams
  • digital portfolio workshop
  • content production workshop
  • note-sharing system
    • political issues
    • openness and transparency reduces plagiarism (turn-it-in)

1. High level

Including: continued activity, practitioner, knowledge and skills to share.

• • Target: junior, senior, grad
  • dScribe (depends on course content and how it’s presented - could be low or med)
  • free culture organizer
  • reading group?

Avoid

• Freshmen UROP
• Undergrads as dScribes
• Targeting involved juniors and seniors

AD Group

• All audiences