Wisconsin Union Blend

Digital Research Tools (DiRT)

I saw a post on this in the Chronicle’s Wired Campus this morning and thought I would add a blurb on it to the WUB. Love the acronym! The wiki is at http://digitalresearchtools.pbwiki.com/. Here’s the description:

“This wiki collects information about tools and resources that can help scholars (particularly in the humanities and social sciences) conduct research more efficiently or creatively. Whether you need software to help you manage citations, author a multimedia work, or analyze texts, Digital Research Tools will help you find what you’re looking for. We provide a directory of tools organized by research activity, as well as reviews of select tools in which we not only describe the tool’s features, but also explore how it might be employed most effectively by researchers.”

Okay here’s the question: Let’s say I create a presentation, a podcast, or a video as part of my work here at the University. I think I did a good job on it and I want to share it with the world. I slap a Creative Commons license on it and say, “Here it is. Enjoy.” The thing is, was it ever my right to put a CC license on it in the first place? If I created it as part of my work, did I have the right to share it with the world?

Now let’s move to phase two.

Let’s say I use a University service, a website on a UW server, to share it with the world.  As part of using this service, the Terms of Use states that the University  retains copyright control of that presentation, podcast or video. So what does that mean? Does the University retain the CC license I placed on the work or is that license nullified? Is the University obligated to share the work under the terms of the license?

What do the three people actually reading this blog think?

Okay, am I missing something here? Help me.

What’s the value of a website that shows “the most popular and best videos” on YouTube? And why do you need a site to do this for you when YouTube allows you to sort by popularity?

I see there’s also a ‘Best of YouTube’ podcast in the iTunes Store.

Umm…hmm.

I read this article on the ‘Future of Educational Video’ off StreamingMedia.com in which the author (Paul Riismandel) wonders what makes for acceptable quality when students create digital content. He draws a nice parallel with writing when he says:

“…holding average students to broadcast quality standards is as absurd as expecting them to write like Maya Angelou or Stephen King. I expect a broadcast journalism student to crank out video worthy of local TV news, just as I would expect a creative writing student to write well enough for a literary magazine. But it’s absurd to expect either of them to change places.”

Lest you think the author doesn’t care about quality, he later writes:

“Quality does matter. A student should never have to strain to understand her teacher’s podcast, and a professor should never have to squint to see what’s in a student’s video. Quality means that the audio or video never detracts from the actual content it contains. Unless the ability to produce video is the point of the assignment, the medium otherwise should be transparent, letting the ideas shine through.”

I couldn’t agree more. I hate the idea that faculty and students would hold back from creating digital video or audio stories simply because they worry that the quality isn’t of a professional level. The transparent media production he talks about is easily achievable and doesn’t require fancy equipment or high-end studios. A little on lighting. A little on framing. And a little on recording audio. I think that would do it.

Maybe showing instructors how this is possible would be a good workshop?

I attended a Delta roundtable dinner recently and heard Professor Sharon Dunwoody from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication give a talk on “Framing Science.” She describes a frame as a narrative scaffolding — a necessary interpretive framework for making sense of information. She referenced an article in The Scientist in which the authors, Matthew C. Nisbet & UW-Madison’s Dietram A. Scheufele, talked about using framing to engage the public on the subject of science:

“[S]cientists must learn to focus on presenting, or “framing,” their messages in ways that connect with diverse audiences. This means remaining true to the underlying science, but drawing on research to tailor messages in ways that make them personally relevant and meaningful to different publics. For example, when scientists are speaking to a group of people who think about the world primarily in economic terms, they should emphasize the economic relevance of science - such as, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, pointing out that expanded government funding would make the United States, or a particular state, more economically competitive.”

Dunwoody offered some good strategies for framing:

• Have a sensitivity to the audience - To whom are you delivering the message?
• Have a strong narrative - Storytelling is a powerful way to frame your message
• Vividness - Bring a sense of excitement and energy to your message.
• Brevity - We’ve all listened to people drone on and on about their work. Don’t do this.
• Have a sensitivity to the audience - Yes, it is so important that it needed to be said twice.

Doug and I have talked about podcasting as a way for faculty and other instructional staff to extend their classrooms and share their teaching, research and stories with the rest of Wisconsin. As part of workshops that we’ve given on podcasting, we’ve talked about the importance of the Wisconsin Idea. The challenge that we’ve posed to instructors is to ask themselves why a person who is not a student in their class should care about what they are talking about in their course. What would make the average person choose to listen to their lectures, their thoughts, and stories? Why would people in the general public want to subscribe to their podcast?

To say that such an external audience is not a priority is just wrong. We’ve got a 100 year-old tradition at this University that says otherwise. To say that our work speaks for itself is equally misguided. We need to use the kinds of strategies that Dunwoody lists to frame our work and make it easier for people to understand.

And framing is not specific to science. We all need to work on how we craft our stories so that we can make them lively and accessible. It’s not just a marketing tool. It’s a way of telling citizens, especially of our State, that a necessary part of our work is explaining why what we do has an impact on their lives.

And now you can.

I didn’t get many takers on the suggestion of a road trip, but Susan Gibbons has given me permission to share the photos she took of the new Gleason Library on the University of Rochester campus. Anybody interested in new learning spaces and how students can play a vital role in shaping these spaces should check this out. In some of the photos you’ll see the student drawings/conceptualizations (on stands) that informed the design of the space.

Susan Gibbons from the University of Rochester challenges us to get to know our NetGen students. At Rochester, the libraries hired an anthropologist (Nancy Foster) to do ethnographic research to help guide decisions about how to improve its institutional repository. Foster stayed busy by doing similar work with the many different “tribes” (Gibbons’ word) of the campus — faculty, graduate students and, most notably, undergrads.

Through various methodolgies including photo elicitation exercises, mapping diaries, and design workshops, Gibbons and Foster gathered a ton of student input for the development of an ideal learning space.

They outline their work in creating a student-centered academic library on the campus. The report can be found at http://www.tiny.cc/GzthX. (Note: I LOVE a good tiny url!)

It was a really inspiring presentation and I hope I get a chance to see this space. Anybody want to take a ride to Rochester?

Anybody use Pipes? Think about aggregating three or four RSS feeds into a single super feed.

Michael Reese and Richard Shingles from the Johns Hopkins University presented on digital field assignments. Digital field assignments are course activities in which students collect and analyze data from the field using digital technologies. Students use digital resources to research issues, topics and interests on campus and in the local community. They enter their data and see it visualized using an Interactive Tool. It’s really interesting to see how these projects get students involved with using their technology skills to research subjects in and outside of their classes.

Both Doug Worsham and I attended this session and we both thought it would be a natural extension to see these digital field assignments evolve into some kind of service learning opportunities.

I also thought it was interesting to hear Michael Reese talk about the need to get students outside with technology instead of sitting in computer labs or at their desks with it. It’s a healthy perspective to balance with the attention that is given to work in virtual worlds.

Josh Baron at Marist College talked about how they manage the onslaught that is Web 2.0 technology. Through a programmatic approach Marist is putting pedagogy and faculty innovation right out front with these technologies. They manage a grant program wherein faculty come to Josh’s group with a technology and/or idea in mind. Through a consultation process, assistance with proposal development, and (as Josh put it) a bunch of us “freaks” sitting around a table and talking about it, the technology gets piloted for a semester.

The pilot/experimental nature of the program means that promises are not made to the faculty about the commitment to supporting the technology beyond the life of the pilot. If that technology is successful in meeting the goals of the instructor, and if excitement builds, then the technology might get folded into something more permanent or longer lasting.

Just in case you are wondering, Josh’s group does take all the security, FERPA and other support issues very seriously. They don’t accept technologies that don’t fit the mold of what they are trying to accomplish with the grant program. I have Josh’s card and some handouts from the session if anyone on the Madison campus is interested.