DOCSLIB.ORG

Document-Oriented E-Learning Components

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Document-Oriented E-Learning Components -UNIVER KE S C IT I Ä OTTO-VON-GUERICKE-UNIVERSITÄT MAGDEBURG R T E U M G A - G N D O E V B FAKULTÄT FÜR INFORMATIK - U O R T G T O Document-Oriented E-Learning Components Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktoringenieur (Dr.-Ing.) angenommen durch die Fakultät für Informatik der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg von Michael Piotrowski, M.A. geb. am 5. Juli 1972 in Aachen Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dietmar Rösner Prof. Dr. Anne Brüggemann-Klein Prof. Dr. Helmut Schauer Promotionskolloquium: Magdeburg, den 17. April 2009 Document-Oriented E-Learning Components © 2009 Michael Piotrowski Design by Michael Piotrowski. Typeset with LATEX in Bitstream Zapf Elliptical 711, Linotype Basic Commercial, and Bitstream Prestige 12 Pitch. Abstract This dissertation questions the common assumption that e-learning requires a learning management system (LMS) such as Moodle or Black- board. Based on an analysis of the current state of the art in LMSs, we come to the conclusion that the functionality of conventional e-learn- ing platforms consists of basic content management and communica- tions facilities (such as forums, chats, wikis, etc.) and functionality for assessment (such as quizzes). However, only assessment functionality is actually specific to e-learning. Furthermore, the content management and communication functionality in e-learning platforms is typically restricted and often inferior when compared with the more general implementations available in Web content management systems. Since content management systems (CMS) offer more general and more robust functions for managing content, we argue that e-learning platforms should be based on content management systems. Only assessment functions are actually specific to e-learning and need to be added to a CMS; this requires the architecture of the CMS to be modular. As a proof of concept, we have designed and implemented the eduCom- ponents, a component-based e-learning system architecture, realized as software components extending a general-purpose content manage- ment system with facilities for course management and assessment. The eduComponents have been successfully used since several se- mesters at Otto von Guericke University and other institutions. The experience with the eduComponents gives practical evidence for the theses we have put forward in this dissertation and of the feasibility of the eduComponents approach. The research done for this dissertation has also resulted in practical definitions for e-learning and e-learning platform, terms which are notoriously ill-defined. Based on these definitions, we have developed an innovative way to assess and to visualize the areas of functionality of e-learning environments. 3 Zusammenfassung Diese Dissertation stellt die gängige Annahme in Frage, dass ein Lear- ning Management System (LMS) wie Moodle oder Blackboard eine Voraussetzung für E-Learning ist. Gestützt auf eine Analyse des aktuel- len Stands der Technik bei LMS kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass die Funktionalität konventioneller Lernplattformen zum einen aus grundle- genen Content-Management- und Kommunikationsfunktionen (Foren, Chats, Wikis usw.) und zum anderen aus Funktionen für Leistungsüber- prüfungen (z. B. Tests) besteht; lediglich letztere sind jedoch tatsäch- lich e-learning-spezifisch. Darüber hinaus ist die Content-Management- und Kommunikationsfunktionalität von E-Learning-Plattformen häufig eingeschränkt und im Vergleich zu den allgemeineren Implementatio- nen in Content-Management-Systemen (CMS) oft schwach. Da CMS allgemeinere und ausgereiftere Funktionen für die Verwaltung von Inhalten bieten, fordern wir, dass E-Learning-Plattformen auf CMS aufbauen sollten. Lediglich die Funktionalität für Leistungsüberprüfun- gen ist e-learning-spezifisch und muss zum CMS hinzugefügt werden; dies erfordert eine modulare CMS-Architektur. Als Machbarkeitsnachweis haben wir die eduComponents entworfen und implementiert, eine komponentenbasierte E-Learning-Systemarchi- tektur, die in der Form von Softwarekomponenten für ein allgemeines CMS realisiert wurde und das CMS um Funktionalität für Kursverwal- tung und Leistungsüberprüfung erweitert. Die eduComponents sind seit mehreren Semestern an der Otto-von- Guericke-Universität und anderen Institutionen erfolgreich im Ein- satz. Die Erfahrungen mit den eduComponents sind der praktische Nachweis für die in dieser Dissertation aufgestellten Thesen und die Tauglichkeit des eduComponents-Ansatzes. In dieser Dissertation stellen wir außerdem praktische Definitionen für die notorisch unklaren Begriffe E-Learning und E-Learning-Platt- form auf. Auf der Basis dieser Definitionen haben wir einen neuen Ansatz zur Einschätzung und Visualisierung der Funktionalität von E-Learning-Umgebungen entwickelt. 5 Contents List of Figures 11 List of Tables 13 Acknowledgments 15 1 Introduction 17 1.1 Why E-Learning? . 17 1.2 Problem Statement . 20 1.3 Theses . 22 1.4 Outline . 24 2 Foundations and State of the Art 25 2.1 E-Learning . 25 2.1.1 What Is E-Learning? . 25 2.1.2 Corporate and Academic E-Learning . 30 2.1.3 E-Learning: A Practical Definition . 35 2.2 Software for E-Learning . 35 2.2.1 What Is an E-Learning Platform? . 37 2.2.2 Some Historical Notes . 37 2.2.3 E-Learning Platforms: A Practical Definition . 39 2.3 Do We Really Need Special Software for E-Learning? . 43 2.4 Content Management Systems . 45 2.5 State of the Art . 47 2.5.1 E-Learning Platforms . 48 2.5.2 Content Management Systems . 53 2.6 Summary . 56 7 3 The eduComponents Approach 59 3.1 Design and Implementation . 60 3.1.1 Design Considerations . 60 3.1.2 Implementation . 62 3.2 Short Description of the Individual Components . 66 3.2.1 ECLecture . 67 3.2.2 ECQuiz . 67 3.2.3 ECAssignmentBox . 68 3.2.4 ECAutoAssessmentBox . 69 3.2.5 ECReviewBox . 70 3.3 Related Work . 70 3.3.1 Architecture . 71 3.3.2 Systems . 73 3.3.3 Educational Uses of Plone . 74 3.3.4 Summary . 75 4 Assessment 77 4.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy . 77 4.2 Newer Taxonomies . 79 4.2.1 Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy . 79 4.2.2 Marzano’s New Taxonomy . 81 4.2.3 Summary . 82 4.3 E-Assessment . 83 4.3.1 Early Automatic Testing Systems . 84 4.3.2 Audience Response Systems . 85 4.3.3 Computer-Aided Instruction . 86 4.3.4 Web-Based Assessment . 90 4.3.5 Summary . 92 4.4 Design and Implementation of the Assessment-Related eduComponents Products . 93 4.4.1 ECQuiz . 93 4.4.2 ECAssignmentBox . 101 4.4.3 ECAutoAssessmentBox . 112 4.4.4 ECReviewBox . 116 4.5 Authoring and Interchange of Multiple-Choice Tests . 119 4.5.1 File Formats for Authoring . 120 4.5.2 Test Interoperability . 127 4.6 Summary . 143 8 5 Practical Use, Experience, and Evaluation 145 5.1 Infrastructure . 145 5.2 Usage . 147 5.3 Student Questionnaire Results . 150 5.3.1 Usability . 151 5.3.2 Organization . 152 5.3.3 Influence on Learning Processes . 152 5.4 Comments from Instructors . 155 5.5 User Questionnaire Results . 155 5.6 Summary and Discussion . 158 6 Outlook 161 6.1 eduComponents and the Plone roadmap . 161 6.2 Plone as a Learning Object Repository . 163 6.2.1 What are Learning Objects? . 163 6.2.2 Excursus: Learning Objects—A Critical Discussion165 6.2.3 Learning Object Repositories vs. CMSs . 167 6.3 Using Plone and the eduComponents for E-Portfolios . 168 6.4 Summary . 170 7 Summary and Conclusion 171 7.1 Component Synergy . 173 7.2 Concluding Remarks . 175 A Glossary 177 B Student Questionnaire 181 C User Questionnaire 185 Bibliography 187 Author’s Publications in the Context of this Dissertation 205 Theses Supervised by the Author in the Context of this Disserta- tion 207 9 List of Figures 2.1 PLATO V terminal . 38 2.2 Activities supported by e-learning platforms . 42 2.3 Demarcation of Web content management . 46 2.4 Typical CMS user interface (Contenido) . 48 2.5 Screenshot of Moodle . 51 2.6 Screenshot of OLAT . 52 2.7 Plone user interface . 54 3.1 Zope architecture . 62 3.2 eduComponents architecture . 65 3.3 Example course homepage realized with ECLecture . 67 3.4 A multiple-choice test in ECQuiz . 68 3.5 Student’s view of an assignment box . 69 3.6 Automatic feedback from ECAutoAssessmentBox . 70 3.7 ECReviewBox . 71 4.1 Pyramid of learning objectives . 78 4.2 Pressey Testing Machine . 85 4.3 Screenshots from PLATO I . 88 4.4 PLATO IV multiple-choice test . 89 4.5 ECQuiz quiz options . 95 4.6 ECQuiz question types . 97 4.7 Editing view of an ECQuiz question . 98 4.8 Editing view of an ECQuiz answer . 98 4.9 ECQuiz instant feedback option for self-assessment tests 99 4.10 Student’s view of an assignment box . 102 4.11 ECAssignmentBox editing view . 103 4.12 Relation of ECAssignmentBox and ECAssignmentTask . 106 11 4.13 ECAssignment workflow states . 108 4.14 Assignment box evaluation view . 109 4.15 Assignment box analysis view . 109 4.16 ECFolder statistics view . 110 4.17 Comparing two submissions . 111 4.18 A screenshot of PlagDetector . 111 4.19 Editing information required for automatic testing . 114 4.20 Automatic feedback from ECAutoAssessmentBox . 115 4.21 Student’s view of ECReviewBox . 118 4.22 MC Frog test editor . 121 4.23 Quick Edit view of a test . 128 4.24 Example test structure . 131 4.25 ECQuiz question groups . 132 5.1 Submissions during summer semester 2008 . 146 5.2 Submissions times during summer semester 2008 . 146 5.3 Students using eduComponents at WDOK . 150 5.4 Student responses: Usability . 152 5.5 Student responses: Organization . 153 5.6 Student responses: Learning process (diligence) . 153 5.7 Student responses: Learning process (elaborateness) . 154 5.8 Student responses: Learning process (automatic feedback)154 5.9 User responses: Roles . 156 5.10 User responses: Products . 157 7.1 Activities supported Plone with eduComponents .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open Research
    OPEN RESEARCH PITT, R; DE LOS ARCOS, B; FARROW, R & WELLER, M. OER HUB MILTON KEYNES, UK Open Research by OER HuB is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. Open Research 5 2. Ethics in the Open 20 3. Open Dissemination 43 4. ReQecting in the Open 58 5. Final Thoughts 66 Appendix 67 INTRODUCTION The OER Hub team in Krakow, Poland (l-r: Natalie Eggleston, Rob Farrow, Beck Pitt, Martin Weller & Bea de los Arcos) (CC BY 4.0 International, OER Hub) Welcome to the open textbook version of Open Research based on the two iterations of the award winning open course by the same name which was facilitated by the Hewlett Foundation funded Open Education Research (OER) Hub during 2014 and 2015. Thank you to everyone who participated in the facilitated versions of the course, and for your contributions and suggestions. We have retained the original feel of the original 4-week course but have revised and updated material for this Pressbook version. In addition, we have included many of the insightful contributions from participants and also suggest group activities so that you can use the textbook to facilitate discussions with students, colleagues or friends. Who is this resource aimed at? What does it mean to research in the open? Why should I make my research open? How do I research openly? 2 OPEN RESEARCH / INTRODUCTION If you have an interest in openness, open education, research skills or want to Ynd out more about the impact of Open Educational Resources (OER), then this resource is for you.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems
    Chapter 1 A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems Mümine Kaya Keleş and Selma Ayşe Özel Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222 Abstract In recent years, rapid developments in technology and the web have led to many changes in education. One of the most important changes in education is in the form of distance learning. Distance learning, which is used to define education where educators and learners are physically separated, is not a new concept; however, emerging technologies and the web allow web‐based distance learning and therefore increase its popularity. As a result of these developments, many universities have started to use web‐based distance learning systems to provide flexible education that is independent of time and place. In this chapter, we review all popular, widely used, and well‐known learning management systems and include detailed comparison of some of these systems to allow institutions to choose the right system for their distance education activities. Keywords: distance learning, literature review, educational research, learning manage- ment systems, Moodle 1. Introduction Distance education, which is now also referred to as distance learning or e‐learning, has existed for centuries. Although as Keegan says “the ideas surrounding the educational endeavor are somewhat similar” [1], it is not easy to find a single definition of distance education. While according to North [2], a few definitions even look to define it in terms of a single technology, according to long‐distance teaching [3], others display distance education simply as a recent development of the class into a remote location [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Management System Technologies and Software Solutions for Online Teaching: Tools and Applications
    Learning Management System Technologies and Software Solutions for Online Teaching: Tools and Applications Yefim Kats Ellis University, USA & Rivier College, USA InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger Director of Book Publications: Julia Mosemann Acquisitions Editor: Lindsay Johnston Development Editor: Elizabeth Ardner Typesetter: Gregory Snader Production Editor: Jamie Snavely Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc. Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference Copyright © 2010 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching : tools and applications / Yefim Kats, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book gives a general coverage of learning management systems followed by a comparative analysis of the particular LMS products, review of technologies supporting different aspect of educational process, and, the best practices and methodologies for LMS-supported course delivery"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-61520-853-1 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-61520-854-8 (ebook) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Learning Management Systems
    Open Source Learning Management Systems Emerging open source LMS markets Recommended LMS for each market Getting off on the right foot By Mark Aberdour Epic Technical Producer, Epic 52 Old Steine Brighton, BN1 1NH United Kingdom [email protected] www.epic.co.uk t: +44 (0) 1273 728686 f: +44 (0) 1273 821567 All rights reserved. You agree that by downloading and accessing this publication that no part of it maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of Epic. Full acknowledgement of author and source must be given. ©2007 Epic Reproduction without written permission is strictly forbidden - 2 - An Epic White Paper Contents Executive summary 4 A changing market 4 The oppor tunity for Open Source 5 Emerging open source LMS markets 6 Large enterprise 6 Small and medium sized business (SMB) 6 Government and public sector 7 Primary and secondary education 7 Rapid rollout 8 Market feature matrix 8 The open source landscape 10 Benefits of Open Source 10 Risks of Open Source 11 Myths of Open Source 12 Selecting an open source LMS 13 Market recommendations 15 Large enterprise 15 Small and medium sized business 17 Government and public sector 19 Primary and secondary education 21 Rapid rollout 23 A detailed look at each LMS 24 Atutor 24 DotLRN 25 Ilias 26 Moodle 27 Sakai 28 Getting off on the right foot 30 Appendix A: Active open source LMS projects 32 References 33 Other Epic e-learning white papers 35 Epic Thinking 37 Epic Arena 38 ©2007 Epic Reproduction without written permission is strictly forbidden - 3 - An Epic White Paper Executive summary If you thought that “Open source learning management system (LMS) equals Moodle”, then think again.
    [Show full text]
  • The Open Course Library: Using Open Educational Resources to Improve Community College Access
    THE OPEN COURSE LIBRARY: USING OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACCESS By MARY ANN LUND GOODWIN A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology DECEMBER 2011 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Mary Ann Lund Goodwin, 2011 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of MARYANN LUND GOODWIN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ______________________________ Kelly Ward, Ph.D., Chair ______________________________ Paul E. Pitre, Ph.D. ______________________________ Pat Sturko, Ph.D. iii THE OPEN COURSE LIBRARY: USING OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACCESS Abstract by Mary Ann Lund Goodwin, Ed.D. Washington State University December 2011 Chair: Kelly Ward Community colleges are committed to meeting the educational needs of the communities they serve and they have increased access to higher education by offering new and innovative services to students often unable to attend traditional baccalaureate institutions. An innovation known as Open Educational Resources (OER) promises to make college more accessible and affordable by reducing textbook costs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison and Evaluation of Open Source Learning Managment Systems
    Itmazi, Jamil, Gea, M. M., Paderewski, P. and Gutiérrez, F.L. 2005. A Comparison and evaluation OF Open source learning managment systems. IADIS International Conference - Applied Computing 2005. Algarve, Portugal. 22-25 Feb. http://www.iadis.net/dl/Search_list_open.asp?code=1189 http://www-etsi2.ugr.es/usuarios/jamil/Prest_IADIS.pdf A COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF OPEN SOURCE LEARNING MANAGMENT SYSTEMS Jamil Ahmad Itmazi PhD. Student Computer Science Department, Granada University, Spain [email protected] Gea, M. M., Paderewski, P. and Gutiérrez, F.L Computer Science Department ETSI, Granada University, Spain [email protected] ABSTRACT The eLearning is a new modern tool of current learning system; it is becoming so important of the learning of the universities. The core of eLearning solutions is LMS or CMS (learning/course management systems), which help the university to automates the managing of learning events. Some of LMS are commercial Software, while others are free Open-Source LMS. The universities give more attention to OS-LMS, which are becoming very interesting of the eLearning landscape, even it are competing other proprietary software. In fact, studying and analyzing LMS´s is not easy; because the serious studies that made evaluation and comparison of the LMS are not sufficient, especially the open-source LMS, which did not take a good attention in those studies, so we emphasis the necessity of more analysis and study of LMS´s which involve OS-LMS and we try to contribute with this article. In this article, we make an introduction of LMS, listing some of them, choosing two OS-LMS (Moodle and Ilias) to study and evaluate then we start the comparison and evaluation to every package with introduction, features, different views and weaknesses (suggests to improve it).
    [Show full text]
  • Are Moocs Open Educational Resources? a Literature Review on History, Definitions and Typologies of OER and Moocs
    Open Praxis, vol. 11 issue 4, October–December 2019, pp. 331–341 (ISSN 2304-070X) 2019 Open Education Global Conference Selected Papers Are MOOCs Open Educational Resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and MOOCs Christian M. Stracke Open University of the Netherlands (The Netherlands) [email protected] Stephen Downes National Research Council (Canada) [email protected] Grainne Conole Independent Consultant (United Kingdom) [email protected] Daniel Burgos & Fabio Nascimbeni Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR), (Spain) [email protected] & [email protected] Abstract Open Education gained more visibility as a result of the emergence of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). This article discusses whether MOOCs should be considered as OER. Open Education and OER can be treated as two strands with different historical roots even though, in theory, OER are an aspect of Open Education. Different OER definitions and typologies are analyzed in relation to their dimensions and categorizations. Furthermore, the four conditions and two original categories of MOOCs are discussed, leading to a debate on their quality. It turns out that there are two perspectives on MOOCs: from an OER perspective, MOOCs as a product can be called OER. From an Open Education perspective, MOOCs are going beyond OER as enablers of Open Education and are understood as an innovative way of changing education. These perspectives are reflected by the OpenEd Quality Framework. The short answer to our leading question is: sometimes, and it depends on your perspective. Keywords: Open Education, Open Learning, Massive Open Online Courses, Open Educational Resources, literature review, OpenEd Quality Framework Introduction The topic of Open Education has become increasingly complex in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Available Elearning Platforms (Focusing on Freeware)
    Overview of available eLearning Platforms (focusing on freeware) Work Package 4 of the Project Blended Learning Quality-Concepts Optimized for Adult Education Compiled and edited by Multilateral Grundtvig Project 539717-LLP-1-2013-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Content 1. What is open source? ............................................................................................. 3 1.1. Free Redistribution .......................................................................................... 3 1.2. Source Code..................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Derived Works ................................................................................................. 3 1.4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code ............................................................ 3 1.5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups ................................................ 3 1.6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor ................................................ 3 1.7. Distribution of License..................................................................................... 3 1.8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product ..................................................... 4 1.9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Online Learning at Columbia University
    ONLINE LEARNING AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE TASK FORCE ON ONLINE INITIATIVES June 9, 2014 Sharyn O’Halloran Chair, University Senate George Blumenthal Professor of Political Economy Cleo Abrams ‘15 Senator, Columbia College Matthew Chou ‘14 Member, Executive Committee of the University Senate Senator, Columbia College Benjamin Spener ‘14 University Senate, Chief of Staff, Columbia College Richard Sun ‘13 Member, Executive Committee of the University Senate Senator, Columbia College Columbia University Senate University Senate Online Learning TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 6 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Online learning at Columbia University ................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Timeline and deliverables ..................................................................................................................... 11 2. Current Practices ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Atolls, Islands, and Archipelagos: the California OER Council and the New Landscape for Open Education in California
    Open Praxis, vol. 8 issue 2, April–June 2016, pp. 131–142 (ISSN 2304-070X) 2016 Open Education Global Conference Selected Papers Atolls, Islands, and Archipelagos: The California OER Council and the New Landscape for Open Education in California Lawrence Francis Hanley & Diego Bonilla California Open Educational Resources Council—CAOERC (USA) [email protected] & [email protected] Abstract California’s three public higher education systems (University of California, California State University, the California Community College System) enroll nearly 3 million undergraduate students and employ almost 100 thousand faculty. In 2012, the California State Legislature directed the three systems to create an online library of open educational resources to encourage the use of free or affordable textbooks and other materials throughout California’s public higher education system. Composed of faculty representatives from each of the three systems, the California Open Educational Resources Council (CAOERC) was formed and charged in January, 2014, with collecting, peer-reviewing, helping to curate, publicizing, and cultivating the adoption of these open educational resources. As we end the first phase of this massive effort, our paper will: 1) outline what we’ve learned about scale and collaboration among California’s three distinct higher education systems; 2) present the results of CAOERC’s ongoing research (via surveys and focus groups) about open textbook use and adoption; 3) briefly discuss issues of OER sustainability in the context of cooperation among state, university, and non-profit sectors. Key words: OER, sustainability, OER research, California, university, open textbooks Introduction California public higher education’s three systems—or segments—enroll nearly 3 million undergraduate students and employ almost 100,000 faculty.
    [Show full text]
  • Astrophysicists and Physicists As Creators of Arxiv-Based Commenting Resources for Their Research Communities. an Initial Survey
    371 Information Services & Use 37 (2017) 371–387 Astrophysicists and physicists as creators of ArXiv-based commenting resources for their research communities. An initial survey Monica Marra INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Piero Gobetti 93/3, I-40129 Bologna, Italy E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. This paper conveys the outcomes of what results to be the first, though initial, overview of commenting platforms and related 2.0 resources born within and for the astrophysical community (2004–2016). Experiences were added, mainly in the physics domain, for a total of twenty-two major items, including four epijournals – and four supplementary resources, thus casting some light onto an unexpected richness and consonance of endeavours. These experiences rest almost entirely on the contents of the database ArXiv, which adds to its merits that of potentially setting the grounds for web 2.0 resources, and research behaviours, to be explored. Most of the experiences retrieved are UK- and US-based, but the resulting picture is international, as various European coun- tries, China and Australia have been actively involved. Final remarks about creation patterns and outcome of these resources are outlined. The results integrate the previous studies according to which the web 2.0 is presently of limited use for communication in astrophysics and vouch for a role of researchers in the shaping of their own professional communication tools that is greater than expected. Collaterally, some aspects of ArXiv’s recent pathway towards partial inclusion of web 2.0 features are touched upon. Further investigation is hoped for. Keywords: Scholarly communication, scholarly commenting, 2.0 interaction, astrophysics, physics, peer-review, ArXiv 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Applications
    1 Free Applications Hundreds of Apps with Potential to Enhance Professional Development, Technical Assistance, and Dissemination Activities and Results By Larry Edelman [email protected] Note: This document (v. 9 – 2/28/11) is updated frequently. Updates and related discussions are posted at: http://exploringtech.wordpress.com/ Why should we use technology for PD, TA, and Dissemination? • In particular, technology can help us to efficiently, effectively, and creatively: 1. Create content; 2. Share knowledge; and 3. Build and support relationships. We should consider ALL applications that are available to us. This includes applications that are expensive, moderately priced, inexpensive (shareware), and free (freeware). This includes software that we download to our computers and software that runs on the web. Some expensive applications enable us to us to communicate in very unique and effective ways, while the functions of other expensive applications can be easily replicated, or even improved upon, by the use of freeware. Likewise, some free applications are all we need to get the job done, while other free applications have significant limitations or involve the use of paid advertisements that detract from our purposes. I use some relatively expensive applications for tasks such as video editing and authoring online learning modules. But I also use many free applications for things such as document sharing, web conferencing, video conferencing, media transcoding, audio editing, screen capturing, media posting, and building and hosting wikis, blogs, and web sites. Why, in particular, should we explore free applications? • Sometimes, free applications are all that we need. Why purchase or license expensive software when there are free solutions? • The budgets in PD and TA programs are being dramatically reduced.
    [Show full text]