DScribe Process Refinement Session: 9/25/2009

DScribe Process Refinement Session: 9/25/2009

dScribe Process Refinement Session

25 September 2009

Attendees: Joseph Hardin, Ted Hanss, Garin Fons, Piet Kleymeer, Greg Grossmeier, Kathleen Ludwig, Susan Topol

Roles of dScribe’s
 * advocacy/promoting
 * identify/gather material
 * obtain permission
 * review (copyright)
 * extract and tag
 * find open content (replacement content)
 * edit
 * publish
 * promote

Other Roles
 * peer review
 * quality control
 * audit (legal and policy)

We need dScribe “lite” process, faculty plays role of dScribe2 (when they review and update their materials in courses that are already open)

Issue: dScribes feel like failures (“guilt factor”) if they don’t complete an entire course. We need to define other success measurables.

Identify and award “Levels of Openness”
 * level 1: do it yourself
 * level 2: use a student (dScribe 1 or dScribe 2) to review
 * level 3: advanced consulting (dScribe 2 → Open.Michigan team)
 * level 4: Open.Michigan team review, beyond the call of duty (Piet’s work on SI 508)

dScribe success measurables
 * completed course/module/resource
 * finding open content for someone (like “reference librarian”)
 * convincing someone to “do” open
 * advocacy for open, even beyond campus
 * gain knowledge of open resources
 * personal practice of open
 * being able to create an open resource without help from others
 * feedback/analytics “xx numbers of access to this open resources you created”
 * merit badges to reward participation and accomplishments

Provide do-it-yourself checklist for creating open. (We are available as consultants.)

Provide self teaching tools (not just wiki, how to videos), e.g., Kathleen’s training module. Don’t overly complicate process. When possible, communicate simplicity to both dScribes and faculty.

Challenges
 * faculty won’t buy in
 * make “open” a criteria for faculty success (create and award a “certificate of openness”)
 * federal programs (stimulus package) and incentives for university to make content open

Who is doing this now?
 * Creative Commons
 * University of Cape Town
 * (not MIT)

Break Downs
 * buy in
 * med school permissions (Dean buy-in, Dean should encourage permissions)
 * other faculty permissions
 * our process only works if faculty say yes
 * access to original file format
 * content too dense for semester-long clearing process
 * too much work comes at end of semester
 * demand on staff to review and publish at end of semester
 * student interest wanes (time constraints)
 * student abandons process
 * steep learning curve
 * lack of knowledge about copyright
 * faculty interest wanes (time constraints)
 * lack of good open content
 * faculty don’t like final product
 * policy issues (copyright, fair use)

Lessons
 * We have to have buy-in and permission
 * We need original materials
 * We need to demonstrate value, and give visibility too, early steps in process (not just at the end when the course is published).
 * Semester turnaround cycle for publishing entire course not reasonable.
 * “Componentizing” the process (presence, gather, etc.), recognize and acknowledge progress
 * Better expectation setting for faculty (about process and final results)

Next Steps:
 * Clearer idea of our focus
 * Changing our focus from “working for” to “working with”
 * Further discussion at OER Core meeting on September 28, 4:15 pm