context & common issues - quality control - dissemination - sustainability institutions invest...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
M E R L O T
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching
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 T
• 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.
AssumptionsM 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.
Major Activities
Result • High Quality Learning Components • Support for Faculty Development
M E R L O T
Track & Assess Usage
Develop Discipline
Communities
Post/Host Learning
Components
Review & Assess
Learning Components
Solicit Learning Components
A Taste of M E R L O T
• Educators
• Authors
• Reviewers
• Faculty Support
M E R L O T Perspectives
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
Scenario 2:
Preparation for Fall Semester Course
Topics: Classical mechanics, fluids Waves and oscillations
Needs: Class demonstrations Interactive homework Advanced topics & readings Supplemental material
Solutions
http://www.merlot.org
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
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
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.”
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
Building Discipline Communities
USERS REVIEWERS
AUTHORS
Professional Societies
Faculty Development/Support
A way to reach the “other 80%”– Ease of use– Reduce time commitment– Lessen the demands on local support
staff
MERLOT Software Overview
• Online Community Starter Kit (OCSK)
• Continuous Improvement Process
• Development Team
• Future Directions
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
Robust & Scaleable Technology
• Multiple OCSKs on one server
• Category scheme unifies separate sites
• Automated link checking
Based on Open Standards
• Library of Congress categories
• IMS metadata
• Java Servlets, HTML, JavaScript
• Database: SQL, JDBC
• OS: Unix, NT, Mac OSX
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
OCSK Development Team
• Manager
• Programmer
• Designer
• Librarian
• Center for Usability in Design and Assessment
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
More Than a Collection of URLsM E R L O T
• Engaging Faculty in Discipline-Based Evaluation & Use of Online Learning Materials
• Providing Tools and Processes to EnsureTeaching-Learning Success
• Managing Our Collaboration
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, 2002 San Diego
MERLOT National Conference September, 26-30, 2002 Atlanta
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
Bringing MERLOT Home
November workshop for your faculty development personnel:
• How to use MERLOT to achieve your institution’sacademic technology goals
- peer review processes- guidelines for online learning assignments- guidelines for online communications- guidelines for engaging faculty with MERLOT
Continuous Improvement
Advisory meetings of project directors and discipline co-leaders at EDUCAUSE/NLII in January:
• Progress reports• Continued planning• Issues resolution
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
The Vision
MERLOT will be the place
where faculty from around the world
will share
learning materials and pedagogy
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.
MERLOT “Ecosystem”
Legend
Existing membersPotential members
Grant-Making Organisations
University Systems
Sponsors
Partners
Advertisers
Professional organizations
Faculty members
Individual institutions
Students
M E R L O T
Staff
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
.’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 T
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 T
Organization & Staffing ModelPhase II: “Development”
• Early 2001Board of DirectorsBoard of Directors
Administrative Advisory Group
Administrative Advisory Group
Executive AssistantExecutive Assistant
AdministrationAdministration External Relations
External Relations ProgramsPrograms ITIT
• 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 T
CEOCEO
Faculty Advisory Group
Faculty Advisory Group
MERLOT Discipline Groups
BiologyPhysics
Teacher Ed
Business
InformationTechnology
ChemistryPsychology
Health SciencesHistory
LanguagesMath
Music Engineering
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)
Participation Agreement
Intellectual Property
• Rights to learning materials remain with theirowners
• 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
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
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
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