CIC CMS/LMS

Final version of glossary

2004-04-29T15:15:00.000-05:00

Academic technology typically refers to that segment of a college or university's computing staff who as a group are responsible for the effective use of computing in teaching and learning in the institution. More generally it refers to all aspects of such service, from software and hardware to usage and administration.

Accessible refers to the intentional design of computer applications so that they may be effectively used by people with any number of disabilities. A web page that offers, for instance, the capability for being "read" by a speech device for an unsighted user, or a kiosk system that is placed at a height suitable for a wheelchair user, are examples of accessibility issues. In 1998 the federal government revised the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 508") to require all federal agencies to make their information systems and technologies more accessible to users; the spirit of this law is leading most vendors and IT organizations to conform to these new federal practices.

API stands for Application Program Interface, which is a feature of some software that allows computer programs to be written that can control aspects of the software. A software application's API is a set of published specifications for how that software can be manipulated by other software.

Archival is an adjective referring to archiving, or storing for a very long time. Libraries serve a broad social function as repositories for archives of information stored in documents, typically print, but increasingly documents in electronic and other forms. How long such documents are "important" to be archived (kept in a usable form) is something that librarians think about a lot. There are not infrequent value differences between librarians and technologists in this regard.

Asset management systems are database systems designed to handle inventorying, use, counting, and other functions of any asset. Large organizations operate asset management systems to track such things as office furniture, computers, software, or other items of value that must be accounted for. A content management system (see below) may be conceived of as a type of asset management system.

Authentication may be thought of as the process of "logging in" to a computer system that is designed to verify the identity of the person at the keyboard. In simple terms, authentication is that part of a system that "proves you are who you say you are." Providing a password is a means of providing authentication that we are most familiar with, but other systems are available, such as eye retina scanning or use of "smart cards."

Authorization is that part of a computer system which enforces some policy concerning use of that system. In simple terms, authorization "tells the system what you can and cannot do" when you log into it. Course management systems typically have authorization components which limit entry into course sites to those who are

Automagical is a made-up term conflating "automatic" and "magical," commonly used by technical staff as shorthand. It refers to a functional automated process that is purposefully not described in detail because it is either a known and trusted process or a process that needs to be developed.

Cataloging is an activity performed by library staff to attach metadata to items that the library in most cases owns. Descriptive cataloging refers to the specification of metadata that relates to physical properties of a piece (e.g., the number of pages in a book or the medium on which a computer file is stored), and subject cataloging refers to the specification of metadata which places the piece in a larger context of related works.

CMS in our context stands for "course management system," a class of software that includes such products as WebCT, Blackboard, and ANGEL. The abbreviation is also often used to refer to "content management system," a type of database software that is used to keep track of large numbers of digital objects.

Content management systems are specialized database systems for managing large collections of digital materials such as electronic documents, images, and digitized sound or video. Management tasks can include subject or item retrieval, or more abstract management tasks such as calculating storage requirements, inventorying by format, and the like.

A content object is, in the context of the CIC conference, a digital file or aggregation that has qualities of a document in that it carries internal semantic meaning. Faculty place "content objects" into their CMS course sites so that their students can view/listen to/read them.

Content rights management, or more generally simply "rights management," is the collection of processes, practices, and standards for assuring compliance with copyright laws. Both copyright owners and institutional users of copyrighted materials (such as libraries) often have rights management systems in place to protect their interests.

Copyright policy refers to a legal tradition and specific law that goes back to the 18th century in England, providing limited monopoly rights to authors and publishers for dissemination of their works. There is an extensive literature on this, and many issues which affect higher education, including piracy, research publication, and the distribution of electronic documents for teaching purposes.

Course management system: SAKAI definition: A web application designed to enhance the teaching and learning experience through the use of online tools (see also Learning Management System, System).

Crosswalk is a computing term referring to the transformation from one database format standard to another. A crosswalk specifies the relationships between all elements of two similar databases, indicating how noncommensurate elements are transformed from one database to the other.

Digital Library Technologist is a professional that specializes in some or all aspects of Library management of digital materials.

Digital Rights Management pertains to the digital management of copyrights. Historically, DRM has focused on security, encryption and enforcement issues. Over the last 3-4 years the focus has broadened to encompass digital management of copyright, intellectual property, and regulatory requirements such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Education Act) and HIPAA - (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that prescribe rights for students and patients respectively. DRM-Workshop Summary Report

DAMS is the acronym for Digital Asset Management System

A Digital Asset Management System is a set of interelated computer applications and network services providing an infrastructure to support the capture, acquisition, cataloging, storage, mangement and distibution of digital media - video, audio, graphics, documents and text. There are a broad array of management capabilities but those most often considered for Higher Education include: access control and permissions, version control, check-in and check-out, use data, copyright, intellectual property, and compliance to FERPA and HIPAA federal regulations. G-SAM - Global Society for Asset Management

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)

The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set is often referred to as simply "Dublin Core." IT is a standard for cross-domain information resource description. Here an information resource is defined to be "anything that has identity". There are no fundamental restrictions to the types of resources to which Dublin Core metadata can be assigned. This set is often considered the minimum set of metadata required to describe a resource. Dublin Core Metadata Element Set

ePortfolio is a software application and digital repository of artifacts that facilitates, presentation, critical
thinking, assessment and reflection by individuals and groups.

eReserves is a service generally provided by the Library to provide required academic materials online for use by students and faculty enrolled in classes. Materials may include any of the materials in the library holdings as well as those provided by instructors.

federated search: a general term for the technology to perform a simultaneous search across multiple databases.

FERPA is an acronym for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Part 99. Passed into law in 1974, FERPA governs the nature of and the manner in which information about students can be disclosed. Has an effect on the rules established to govern access to Course Management Systems. For more information Full text of FERPA via the GPO website

GLB is an acronym for the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Modernization Act of 1999. Among other things, the act includes new privacy rules to protect consumers personal financial information. For Universities, this may include the information exchanged during the processing of student loans, or in the handling of stored value cash cards and campus IDs. For more information: GLB Act Resource Page from NACUBO

HIPAA is an acronym for the Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act of 1996. HIPAA attempts to establish a national standard for the protection of health information. For more information: Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA, from the United States Department of Health and Human Services

ILS is an acronym for integrated library system, the tool or suite of tools used to acquire, catalog, circulate and otherwise manage the library's physical and electronic holdings. Usually includes an Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), otherwise known as an online card catalog. For more information: Integrated Library Systems. ERIC Digest

IMS was at one time an acronym for Instructional Management Systems. Currently, the formal name is IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. IMS "develops and promotes the adoption of open technical specifications for interoperable learning technology." Source: IMS web site

An institutional repository is a computer-based collection of content generated by the faculty, staff and students at a college or university. Usually, this material is collected electronically for the purposes of preserving the research or other intellectual output of the institution.

Instructional technology: the use of technology (computing technology) to support learning

IT is an acronym for instructional technology (see above) and information technology. Sometimes, it refers specifically to the Information Technology division or department at an institution.

JSTOR is the Scholarly Journal Archive, an online database of the backfiles of key scholarly journals. JSTOR content is usually added with a "moving wall" of currency: for example, a journal publisher might allow content only 4 years old or older to be added to JSTOR, so that backfiles are constantly being added, but the most current issues are usually not available.

Learning management systems (see also: course management systems): Infrastructure platform through which learning content is delivered and managed. A combination of software tools perform a variety of functions related to online and offline training administration and performance management. Source:Dr. Diane Ehrlich, Northeastern Illinois University

Learning object: any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Source: IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee

The life cycle of learning objects is the path that a learning object takes as it grows from idea to execution to delivery. Several of the metadata fields in the IMS standard for the description of learning objects track the version number, modification dates, and several other types of events in the life cycle.

Link resolvers are a class of technology tools used to take the user from a link to the current home OR the best appropriate copy of an electronic object (learning object, journal article, web site, media object, etc.) Handle systems, permanent URL systems, and SFX-type systems all rely on link resolution as a core function.

LOM is an acronym for the Learning Object Metadata, the standard set of fields used to describe Learning Objects.

Mappings: tools that help to transform metadata in one standard to metadata in a different standard by showing closest field equivalencies. For example, the MARC 245 field might be mapped to the Dublin Core Title field.

MARC is short for Machine Readable Cataloging. MARC is the metadata format used in most traditional library catalogs. Fields are numbered from 001 to 999 and include lettered subfields (subfield a, subfield b, etc.). In the United States, the MARC standard is maintained by the Library of Congress.

Metadata literally means information about information. In the library and technology worlds, metadata is primarily used to structure and maintain information about digital objects. There are many different types of metadata, including descriptive (describe the intellectual contents of the object), administrative (life cycle information and provenance), and technical (file size, file format, system requirements, etc.)

Middleware is software that connects two otherwise separate applications OR separate products that serve as the glue between two applications. It is, therefore, distinct from import and export features that may be built into one of the applications. Middleware is sometimes called plumbing because it connects two sides of an application and passes data between them. (For example, there are a number of middleware products that link a database system to a Web server. This allows users to request data from the database using forms displayed on a Web browser, and it enables the Web server to return dynamic Web pages based on the user's requests and profile.) Source: CREN digital certificate glossary

NetID is a generic term for a unique personal login for an individual. Also called an institutional id.

OAI: Open Archives Initiative. This initiative develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content.

OCLC: (Online Computer Library Center) a cooperative offering services, such as cataloging and resource discovery.

OKI: (Open Knowledge Initiative) is a group that supports innovative learning technology in higher education. The result of this collaboration is the beginnings of an open and extensible architecture that specifies how the components of an educational software environment communicate with each other and with other enterprise systems. http://web.mit.edu/oki/

Open Source: Open Source Software" is software that makes the programming code available and accessible to users who want to use or adapt it. Open source software development projects include many professionals or skilled amateurs actively cooperating to develop and improve a complex software program by allocating the work among participants. Each participant is able to acquire and use the most fundamental underlying “source code” without paying any fee. http://www.tltgroup.org/opensource/base.htm

OpenURL: Link to a full text article in a way that is stable, and using a good linking tool.

Outreach: This term applies to audiences who are outside the university system, those external partners in the local communities, businesses, national and international contacts, and more.

Pathfinder: A guide designed to assist the user in researching a particular discipline or topic. A pathfinder identifies key subject headings related to the topic, important reference books, periodical indexes, journals and other resources available at the local library. Sources on the World Wide Web are usually also included. Pathfinders can be printed or available online. (Copied from the Glossary of library terms at the University of the Cariboo)

Pedagogy: the principles, practice, or profession of teaching, the art and science of how people learn. Content pedagogy refers to the pedagogical (teaching) skills teachers use to impart the specialized content of their subject area.

Persistence/persistency: Things that stay around, for example, a stable URL that never changes.
Portal: portals provide a single point of access to aggregated information. The primary goal of most portals is ease-of-use. Besides having a single point of access -- a virtual front door -- portals generally try to provide a rich navigation structure.
The portal concept has been applied to general audiences on the Web (Internet portals), to organization-private Web sites ("intranet portals"), and to specialized online communities of practice ("vertical portals" or vortals).

Processing: The work of preparing library materials for use in the library. The information technology profession refers to processing as manipulating data within the computer.

Provenance: the record of an item's origin and the history of its ownership and geographical location since its creation.

Proxy Server: A proxy server improves Internet access speeds from a network primarily by using a caching system. Caching saves recently viewed Web sites, images, and files on a local hard drive so that they don't have to be downloaded from the Web again. Proxy servers both help to make networks more secure and to save users' time. Proxy servers can provide a secure Internet/intranet firewall, can filter incoming data, and can support connection sharing. Proxy servers work as a helpful "middleman" or broker between you and your Internet connection.

Publishing System: is a tool or set of tools that takes structured content and delivers it to the end user.

SCORM is an acronym for sharable content object reference model. SCORM is a family of standards designed to facilitate the creation and reuse of learning or instructional objects. See the Advanced Distributed Learning site for more information.

Secure computing is a generic term for computer-based exchanges that are protected by secure network connections and computing infrastructure, and the standards and planning necessary to support them.

SFX is a content linking system developed in 1999 by researchers Herbert Van de Sompel and Patrick Hochstenbach at the University of Ghent. SFX relies on the OpenURL standard and resolves content links at request time to provide users with the most appropriate copy of a resource and to avoid hard-coding content links in local databases and repositories (including online library catalogs). SFX has been trademarked and is licensed exclusively to the ExLibris Group, who now markets a link-resolver tool under the same name. Originally, SFX was a working title short for "special effects." See Van de Sompel and Hochstenbach's original Dlib article for more information.

Standards are specifications that are mutually agreed upon by associations, interest groups, or other bodies. In this context, there are standards for metadata and system design, standards for file formats, standard protocols for network-based delivery of content, etc.

Stewardship: responsibility for well-being of something. In this context, usually refers to responsible and forward-thinking planning for the longevity of digital content, including cultural materials and learning objects.

Subject guides are lists of recommended library materials and resources in particular subject areas. See also: Pathfinder.

Subject specialist is someone, in this context usually a librarian, who has particular knowledge in a content subject area. Sometimes also called selectors or bibliographers if the subject specialist is responsible for library collections acquisitions in their area.

A systems librarian holds a Masters degree in Library Science (MLS or sometimes MLIS) and is responsible for overseeing a range of library applications and servers. May include responsibility for the operation of the Library Management System (see above).

TEACH is an acronym for the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2003. The TEACH Act includes a number of educational exemptions to copyright restrictions introduced with the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998.

Textbooks are books that are selected to be the primary textual companion to/content of a particular course. Many textbooks now include some sort of technology add-ons in the form of computer-based exercises, quizzes or tests, presentations for the instructor to build on, web sites for additional research, and so forth.

A URL resolver is a tool that takes the user from a link to the content they are seeking. Usually, resolvers rely on a database or other intermediate source of information for the most recent, most appropriate, or most reliable location for the information being sought. See also: link resolver.

VPN is an acronym for Virtual Private Network. A VPN is a private communications network usually used within a company, or by several different companies or organisations, communicating over a public network. VPN message traffic is carried on public networking infrastructure (ie, the Internet) using standard (possibly insecure) protocols. Source: Wikipedia

Additional glossary items, Day 2

2004-04-08T10:20:00.000-05:00

OKI
Proxy server
VPN
URL resolver
FERPA
HIPAA
TEACH
OAI
GLB
e-portfolio
OCLC
MARC
Dublin Core
DAMS
LOM
automagical
crosswalk

Conference day 2 presentation notes: TRAINING AND SUPPORT GROUP 1

2004-04-08T10:08:00.000-05:00

Distentangle the various audiences:
-"Instructor: types (faculty and TAs)
-Support infrastructure types (us)
-Learners

How, if at all, are librarians being trained? Are IT staff trained in the complexity of the library environment.

How do you classify problem types? How are they sorted for referral? what are triage models

Balance between when to train and when to support

Cross-training between groups

cMS as a vehicle for training about other things (HIPAA, library staff training).

3 possible project ideas:
-set of best practices in X, Y or Z training
-abstract tools for assessing training needs (generic usability scripts, training templates, etc.)
-sharing triage models

Authoring mode training vs. user mode (SEE FLowCHART)

Conference day 2 presentation notes: WORKING TOGETHER GROUP 2

2004-04-08T09:49:00.000-05:00

Integrating a digital library into a virtual classroom. It is important for library and IT staff to be in the same location. This does happen on some campuses; they are much more likely to interact if this is possible. What can we do to bring people together if this is not how it’s set up.

-Communication lines between IT and library staff. What is the comm. line? Is it systems people talking to systems people? What is the structure, and what should the structure be? Are the various lines communicating to be sure there is no duplication?

-Administrative leadership: what are the directors of IT and the library directors doing? Are they creating a space for this to happen? Is it a priority of the leadership? What support are they given to make this happen? Staff time, funding, etc. Is there a clear definition of responsibilities?

-Cross-familiarization is important. Cross-fertilization, cloning, and on…

CIC Collaborations:
-Collect and distribute project information
-Repeat conferences that bring IT & Libraries together

The opportunity is to leverage the strengths and resources of both IT and Libraries so that students can take advantage of Library resources and services within the digital space that they find themselves -- namely the CMS.

CMS/Library integration provides the opportunity to bring the library, IT, students, and faculty into the same digital space.

To pull this off all parties -- esp. IT and library -- will need to work together in the same digital and physical space.

WORKING TOGETHER: what next?
Folks gave examples of IT/Library collaboration at their institutions:
-in many cases, collaboration is just beginning, CMS one fo the first major collaborative projects.
-collabative across the CIC institutions (South Asian languages, for example)

Identify challenges/opportunities/key issues/stakeholders:
CHALLENGES
-teaching each other what we know on a regular basis (have very little understanding of what the other does/has)
-knowing more about the technology that we use every day
-no use of lingo
-IT in library gives an opportunity to see the systems in action (not available when stuck in back office or another building)
-coordinate efforts (outreach, support of faculty), people network, not enforce by organizational structure, physical location
-culture prevents direct communication at some places
-regular meetings between groups: IT to IT, public services to AT (regular or as needed). COMMUNICATION is important, and you have to do a lot of it. Can't do a top-down structure.
-Need leadership culture that allows this : some structure to help facilitate
-Shared goals/vision/plan
-tap in to expertise from other institutions. CIC could organize - get the details about the various projects, act as a clearinghouse or snapshot of time/people involved

[Proposed] CIC Project Sharing Data Collection form
1. Project name
2. Institution
3. Project goal
4. Design team members
5. Design team charge
6. Design team timeline for project
7. Funding needed for development
8. Funding source
9. Pilot testing/data collected
10. Software and hardware requirement and costs
11. launch date
12. Programming hours needed
13. Content hours needed by other designers
14. Ongoing tech support needed
15. Lessons learned
16. What would we do differently next time?
17. Is the project scalable/ What are the limits?
18. Can the project be used by other institutions? (are there copyright issues?)
19. Whom to contact for more information

Conference day 2 presentation notes: WORKING TOGETHER GROUP 1

2004-04-08T09:48:00.000-05:00

Covered the stakeholder issue a bit: might have a core of people but you will have to enlist others on a short-term basis.

Opportunities and challenges:
-Coordinated autonomy is important: what is the structure of the collaboration? How will we put ourselves together? What will work at which institution?

-Redefinition of organizational complexity: envision ourselves working in a much more complex invironment.

-Priorities, time, resources. Think about the organizational complexity. One group used their coming together to drive priorities instead of the other way around. Culture: if one group does things quickly and others less so, perhaps combining will reach a happy medium

-Coordinating support: do we have fully integrated support, or is it like “API”-type support, where people are pulled in as needed.

-What are trends? can we suss them out? Perhaps even within the CIC we could focus on this activity.

-Think about this stuff not as a product but as a service. Don’t be as worried about branding the thing, but branding the service.

What might happen in future?
-Continued CIC meetings: on more particular aspects, best practices such as:
-Digital assets stewardship
-Futureproofing;
-Branding the services
-Best practices, a repository of best practices.

Conference day 2 presentation notes: LEGAL POLICIES, Copyright, privacy, FERPA, HIPAA, etc. GROUP 2

2004-04-08T09:47:00.000-05:00

-defining FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act)
How does this reply to a CMS or other course-related issues? A lot of it has to do with the institutional understanding of the law. Critical for members of the institution to understand the implications of their actions in light of the law. Examples of things to be addressed: [who can view] grades, email, personal info, keeping ePortfolios, retention policy

-What can be shared in the CMS? What kinds of information? what about grades? What is the retention policy?

STAKEHOLDERS: General counsel, registrar, students, faculty, librarians, IT. Individual institutional responsibility: share solutions across CIC.

-Copyright is really a broad issue at the university. Some universities don’t want to touch the copyright issue. Every institution needs to have its own policy.

-Who owns the content? Are faculty thinking about what rights they sign away, to Elsevier?

-What about institutional monitoring of observing copyright policy? Are we doing this?

-Raising faculty awareness: who is doing this, if anyone? It is a shared responsibility because so many must be reached with this information. Who will train them? Who is providing copyright education in the institution?

-Take advantage of the fact that this is a hot topic right now (Napster, music lawsuits, etc.): make sure that the CIOs and Provosts know about this as a broader issue. One way to get them to listen is to cite the university retention rights.

How do we work together?
-Create a report from this conference aimed toward CIO and provost that expands the copyright issues, esp. (or for example): is the university retaining rights to online content created at the university?

-Sharing best practices policies and procedures would be a great result from this conference.

-Institutional policies on access and retention should be in place.

Conference day 2 presentation notes: LEGAL POLICIES, Copyright, privacy, FERPA, HIPAA, etc. GROUP 1

2004-04-08T09:46:00.001-05:00

-What is the impact of implementation of these new policies on implementing CMS systems: who gets to look at what? A real can of worms. What happens if CMS becomes the official academic record, and do we have the choice to refuse that responsibility?
-CIC can help to share policy statements, best practices, what are we all doing in terms of protecting information that is legally not distributable beyond certain parameters
-create documents with areas of convergence among the CIC schools. Wouldn’t it be great for our credibility if we could back up our actions with proof that other schools have a similar approach.
-Share other policies that we cannot agree on; share them with CIO’s, legal counsel, provosts to ask for help in coming to agreement
-Centralize e-content licensing on individual campuses
-Need to put security in place to protect privacy in light of PATRIOT ACT
-Intellectual property rights: should be decided who owns what. Will be decided on an institutional basis. Who owns the stuff in the CMS? Would be nice if we knew what our peer CIC schools say about that.
-Define “short-term archiving”; if we’re keeping stuff just so that faculty can re-use it, how long is that? CIC schools could share policies here, as well.

Add'l notes:
Major challenges and opportunities for CIC Institutions to collaborate:
1. Compliance w/HIPAA and FERPA, Teach : Impact of these laws on LMS [CMS] implementation -- espeically retention schedules, record-keeping. Issues: changing grades; revising web pages.
No common base of best practices in interpreting copyright and fair use guidelines.
CIC RECOMMENDATION: CIC's could share policy statements and best practices, FAQ's for how we indificually address copyright, fair use, HIOPAA, FERPA, TEACH ACT

2. Stakeholders: legal counsel, faculty, librarians, students, IT people

3. CIC RECOMMENDATIOn: Need some general CIC guidelines on which libraries and IT can converge. IT/Academic Technologies polidies may differ from library policies for copyright, fair use ... advice to faculty for the same topics may differ from IT/Library

4. Campuses need to centralize e-content licenseing agreements/authorization process on campuses. What about individual faculty licensing content?

5. Privacy and computing security - logs of transactions within the LMS/CMS and with components outside the LMS/CMS that are linked to individual user identities -- concerns about guarding against the misuse of this information

6. Whose material is the course materia -- rights to this varies by institution. Who gets to use Prof. X's course material? Faculty work on their own?? Work for hire belongs to the university?

7. Archiving temporarily (anticipating re-use at some short-term future point) vs. long-term preservation of university records and learning objects of enduring value; How long is short-term -- any agreement across institutions? CIC RECOMMENDATIOn: CIC's ought to share policies on short-term archiving of non-records management materials (chats, web-boards, etc.)

8. Examine shared policies across these topics to intify areas of convergence/agreement and areas of divergence. Food for thought/discussion among ICC library directors, provosts, CIO's, to identify areas of common agreement.

Conference day 2 presentation notes: API/INTEROPERABILITY group

2004-04-08T09:46:00.000-05:00

Created action list for all the other groups
CMS/ILS and Ereserves
-Authentication: Shibboleth is an example.
-Metadata: establishing a common ground
-Policies: greater sharing of IT policies with our peers
-Open source: rules of engagement. Sakai is not the only open source, there are open source projects at other schools and we could be sharing. Important to first define the rules for sharing. CIC should articulate these rules.
-Development efforts and commitment to sharing our efforts
-Create a collaborative space; space for discussion of issues related to interoperability; could be a CMS or a blog.
-Inventory of systems that we use; what is available, etc.?

Conference day 2 presentation notes: STAKEHOLDERS

2004-04-08T09:45:00.000-05:00

Had quite a lively discussion about what a stakeholder definition mean?

Decided first had to talk about where they’d be involved in the process (what table will they be sitting at?)
[see diagram]
Information/instructional technology groups
library group
registrar
training units
users: students
users: faculty

CIC might like to consider:
-talking notes about integration of CMS systems with library systems, distribute to the provosts. Make sure it’s in executive summary form so that they’ll read it.
-Facilitating access to information on library systems/CMS integration. Series of screenshots, etc. A page where access to all CMS’s and a guest account for CIC schools are possible.
-More than a clearinghouse: not just a place where ideas are shared, but a power users work group. Get together on a regular basis.
-A statement from this workshop about the importance of collaboration to the CIO’s and the university administration. Best practices models.
-Ongoing support for prioritizing functional requirements for CMS implementation.

Add'l notes:
CIC "model way" to define who should be "at the table..." define tables
-maintaining autonomy in the CIC inst.
-CIC communication for more standardization among vendors
-coodinating many institutions can be a drawback for CIC licensing of courseware

CIC's role in RFP;s: clearinghouse for RFP's

Colalboration amongst CIC LT people RE: stakeholders
Capturing the process

CIC method for giving guest access to all of our systems 2 help get an idea. sharing help pages.

Who are stakeholders:
-faculty, students: in systems eval stages, tough to get back decent feedback. RFP processes: focus groups, functional requirements gathering: important to get feedback from large groups of constituencies. We need stakeholders to talk directly to developers and clearly define requirements

What is the eval period? when product is beta'ed for yr. after release?

Prioritizing requirements list/bugs list
Prioritizing the importance of stakeholders: pulling out specific people from these constituencies that can become the stakeholders.

Cross-pollination of knowledge between IT/Library.

Add'l stakeholders: IT/Inst. tech/Acad. Tech people.

Who is being represented in faculty representation? early adopters or people with a true feel for the systems?

Curriculum reform: is it a good pad to solicit from?

Who is your audience/ define populations: basic/advanced, etc.

Who sits at the table and what table is it?
-students at the assessment phase
-student affairs and other committees
-bringing university administration to the "decision who sits at the table" conference
-if administration can b aligned you can achieve efficiencies
-IT should look into overall University IT architecture
-Pople who are creating art "public service media"

Centralize vs. non-centralized knowledge repositories

Getting CIC to form administrative groups that can spread policy philosophies, buy in to the big issues.

Conference day 2 presentation notes:METADATA GROUP 1

2004-04-08T09:43:00.000-05:00

Topic is really huge, too much meat to address in this scenario.

[Humorous slide]

What are the things we want to apply metadata to? What are the objects? Objects are academic content, could be used for learning or for research, or just stored somewhere forever. Can be used or repurposed as a learning object, hopefully with associated metadata. Will be findable because the appropriate metadata will have been applied.

Descriptive metadata: what is this object, what is it good for?
Administrative: who has permission to see it? who created it, who owns it, who is responsible?
Preservation: perhaps of more concern to library and preservation types who are thinking about forever and ever storage. IT types tend to only thing 2-3 years out.

Having a tough time getting hands around it: metadata awareness is something that should be grappled with early on. How can creators of objects be encouraged to think about metadata that could be associated with it.

How can we help individuals who are creating objects to come up with a strategy for applying metadata? How should they think about their objects? Example: is it ephemeral? How can we help make those decisions at the point of creation? CIC could work here.

Should work on these awareness issues together.
Perhaps collaborative training and documentation opportunities? CIC could work here.

Critical issues:
-separateness of CMS and the metadata. In order for things to be transferable, they can’t only live in the CMS.
-must create tools to simplify the creating and assigning metadata
-what are the important metadata features for the cMS?

Add'l notes:
-when do things become academic objects?
-who decides what metadata to apply (is there an institutional minimum?)
-will there be tools (can the CMS have these capabilities)
-how long to keep the object and the metadta?
-how granular[ly] should we define objects
-education of creators/producers RE: their options (low-hanging fruit)
-creators: 1) not important to many; just put up w/ no manually-added metadata: can system do it automatically? 2) could be useful to others -- need some min. level of metadata 3) legitimate personal collection -- what will good metadata give? can the library take this on with faculty sign-off?

Assumptions:
-Learning Object can reside anywhere
-creator has to make some decision about strategy

Metadata can be EXTENSIVE: -[things should be] tightly described, and a dynamic, emerging taxonomy has to be acceptable.

[Outline] Strategies:
-Decision making/decision tree (make it easy, build on user profiling)
-pilot program
-Build tools to use existing metadata schema

Conference day 2 presentation notes: TRAINING AND SUPPORT GROUP 2

2004-04-08T09:42:00.000-05:00

-Student support
-IT/Lib partnership: need for training in each other’s skills

A plethora of tools; portal, portfolio, library tools, … How do faculty know what to use for what?

Desire for less training and more support. Virtual support; what do we know about it, how do we train our staff to provide it?

Opportunities:
-Mutual IT/Library training, visiting each other in the venues
-communication and increased awareness so that we know who to contact
-Effective presentation of support models

CIC Collaboration:
-CIC LTI talk to library groups and vice versa
-Add to LTI quarterly reports a section on Library training and support

Features and Issues document, after day 1 discussion (day 2 minor edit)

2004-03-26T11:13:00.000-06:00

Imagining an integrated future:
Library content, library services and the campus Course Management System
A CIC conference, February 23-24, 2004

Features and Issues – An Ongoing Discussion

Revision 2-23-2004: After day one discussion
Revision 3-26-2004: Post-conference, pre-posting

General observations from day one discussion
• The issues set forth are not uniform in scope; some are multi-part, others more simple. We must normalize these somehow as we move towards writing a report or otherwise disclosing the results of our work at this meeting.
• We have not yet established any way to capture the temporal: which issues can or should be addressed immediately, which must be addressed over a period of time, which have some mixture of a short- and long-term nature.
• We should strive, in analyzing all issues, to identify the “low hanging fruit;” projects that can be attacked and completed in a relatively short time period. Things we can and should do now. Cliff’s suggestions are quite helpful here (importing/linking content, policy issues).

Features
Possible library features to be integrated in the course management system:
Resources
1) Academic integrity guide
2) Bibliographic management tools
3) Citation guide
4) Copyright guide
5) Creating Course Web sites guide
6) E-books
7) Evaluating websites guide
8) Federated, or broadcast, search of subscription databases and ejournals
9) Faculty materials
10) Library catalog
11) Plagiarism guide
12) Research/search strategies guide
13) Scanning/media digitization guides
14) Subject guides and prepared subject searches
Services
1) Information literacy instruction online (training)
2) Course learning guides
3) Course packs
4) Course reading lists
5) E-Reserves for text and media, both library-owned and faculty-owned
6) Help desk/online help
7) Institutional repositories
8) Interlibrary loan and document delivery
9) Instructional support centers
10) Learning object management
11) Live and asynchronous online reference
12) Rights clearinghouse

Issues
Some of the issues that may face implementers working to integrate any of the features, above:
Technical and implementation issues
1) Authentication and single sign-on
2) Gathering and maintaining individual preferences
3) Technical platforms, compatibility and extensibility, middleware, APIs
4) Are open source solutions available, viable?
5) Do standards exist?
6) Metadata and controlled vocabulary: appropriate level and type of description for materials and scope of description; appropriate and supportable vocabularies
7) Is training necessary and is it accessible?
8) Outreach and publicity: reaching potential users of new services and resources
9) Lowering the barrier to initiating requests; designing accessible and visible new features
10) Implications for long-term archiving and preservation

Organizational issues
1) Library’s and IT’s involvement in evaluating and implementing campus information systems (CMS, digital asset management, online catalogs, etc.)
2) The Library’s and IT’s role in management of learning objects and locally generated, sharable course material.
3) Who are the stakeholders? Do they speak the same “language” and understand each other’s terminology, priorities, and goals?
4) Navigating trust between the Library and IT organizations
5) How do Library and IT staff work together to support this integrated offering?
6) Balance between faculty autonomy and aggregation of course material
7) Balance between customized service and quick, easy access to high quality library resources (broad and deep penetration)
8) Content rights management, including digital rights management: for a single course, for course reuse, for packing and porting courses. Compliance with U.S. Copyright law, TEACH Act.
9) Avoiding duplicate purchases: evaluating CMS content packages in light of library subscriptions
10) Does an environment exist where experimentation and failure are possible?
11) Does a collaborative effort between Library and IT overtly align with direction from the executive leadership of the institution?

Additional issues introduced through Day 1 discussion
1) Policy issues: legal (privacy, copyright, etc.) and cultural
2) Who are the other campus partners, in addition to the Library and IT? Faculty and students ought to be included in future planning for the CMS. How do we include early adopter-faculty and other faculty? What about the special role of graduate students?
3) What new or reallocated resources will the new offerings require: staff, time, money, etc?
4) Striking a balance between seamless publication and resource branding (in the interests of provenance, link resolution, access to appropriate help and support, etc.)
5) Usability and simplicity of use. What usability studies are we performing? Can these efforts be distributed? Can results be shared?
6) Who should have access to certain features of these integrated systems? What information (including statistics and tracking data) should be retained and who should have the rights to access it?
7) How does the institution encourage faculty to participate and adopt these systems and technologies? What reward structure is there?
8) Learner-centered systems and the centrality of the student role; eportfolios and assessing student growth and achievement above and beyond any one course.
9) Where is the pedagogy? What are the teaching philosophies? What role is there for the library in pedagogy?
10) Institutional partners (IT, Library, faculty, others) must have a chance to clarify language, express their needs, their goals, and their priorities before setting to work on collaborative projects.
11) How do we make a case for our collaboration to the highest-level administration?
12) Training and support: what impact will integrated systems and services have? How will staff gain new skills? Who will train and support the users and the staff? How will we provide help within the CMS?
13) Content accessibility: range of issues from ADA to format longevity.
14) Rights transparency. It must be easy to declare and easy to understand the rights surrounding any object or group of objects.
15) With an explosion of portals, how do we avoid portal creep? How to collaborate instead of compete on campus portal projects?
16) How can we make learning objects discoverable, and whose issue is this discovery? Are we sharing perspectives? Are there selection criteria? Description best practices?
17) If course management systems aren’t designed to retain course content over the long term, will we and where will we archive this material? Beyond the courses, what content should be retained long-term?
18) Integrating tools, systems, and staff in support of faculty course development. Understanding the differences in Library/IT culture. Do we change at the same rate? How quickly is technology adopted?
19) Just-in-time training and service provision, desire for self-service, disinclination to approach the library and the library staff.
20) What does it mean to achieve integration? What are the broad integration goals? Appearance of seamlessness, less clicking, fewest stops, a single environment. Do we wish to be organizationally integrated? Functionally integrated?
21) How do we define success? How will we know when we are successful? What statistics will we gather, have we gathered to demonstrate success or lack of.
22) Are we duplicating efforts between the organizations? Do we know what our counterparts are doing? Do we understand their jobs, their skillsets?
23) How can libraries collaborate with faculty on information literacy? How adequately have we estimated students’ information literacy?
24) Risk tolerance: how do we tolerate failure? Is it possible to innovate when working on an enterprise level?

Glossary terms
Academic technology
Accessible
API
Archival
Authentication
Authorization
Cataloging
CMS
Content object
Content rights management
Crosswalks (metadata)
Digital asset management system
Digital Library Technologist
Digital rights management
Dublin Core
Ereserves
Federated search
IMS
Institutional repository
Instructional technology
IT
JSTOR
Learning object
Life cycle of learning objects
Link resolvers
LMS
Mappings (metadata)
MARC
Metadata
Middleware
NetID
OCLC
OKI
OpenURL
Pathfinder
Pedagogy
Persistence/persistency
Portal
Provenance
Publishing system
SCORM
Secure computing
SFX
Stewardship
Subject guides
Systems Librarian
Textbook
Textbook

Straw Vote (values clarification exercise)
Use in conjunction with Organizational (Org) and Technical (Tech) issues, above.

Issue Number LT Library Other Total
Org-8 25 28 5 58
Org-5 22 33 1 56
Tech-1 20 31 4 55
Tech-6 21 27 1 49
Tech-10 17 22 6 45
Org-2 16 26 2 44 ^ More than 1/2 the votes^
Org-1 12 24 2 38
Org-7 7 28 1 36
Org-3 11 23 1 35
Tech-3 19 13 0 32
Org-9 7 22 1 30
Tech-4 18 10 0 28
Org-11 8 17 1 26
Org-10 4 13 0 17
Org-6 9 5 1 15
Org-4 7 6 0 13
Voters 32 47 4 83

2004-03-26T11:07:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 summary notes, C. Stewart

facilitators

-termporal issues were not addressed
-imbalance in scope of issues
-should we have broad issues or specific issues? we should have a mix
-we should have as a goal to identify a project
-identify things that people can do right away
-concerns about what we actually want out of this meeting? would have been better to allow people to express their needs, then from that build a list of issues.
-shorter-term, reachable goals, what is the low-hanging fruit.
-Cliff's suggestions: linking (easy import of content), policy issues. Cliff's talk really had an impact on the groups.

new issues
-privacy issues
-policy issues: legal and cultural
-more than just IT and library collaborating
-dedication of resources, both time and money
-branding at the library or university level; where are issues coming from
-simplicity of use: how easy is it to use
-security and privacy issues: access to interactions and transactions.
-faculty and their involvement: importance in their role in adopting learning management systems, and an institutional reward structure to affect change
-students as the emerging consumer of the instruction content
-what is the pedagogical component, what about teaching philosophy
-clarifying language, priorities, goals
-how do we make a case to the highest level administration to make a case for this collaboration.
-branding, training, intermarriage
-accessibility to various formats
-what records will be kept and for how long? archiving, access, etc.
-learning objects and retaining information about who can use them so that it's immediately apparent what the rights situation is. Transparencecny
-portal creep: everyone is coming out with their own portal, who will have the top level
-technical issue: roles for librarians access (also a policy issu)
-lack of communication and trust relationship: at the institution, but also on a broader scale. No understanding of goals and needs of the various units.
-open source
-how to make learning objects discoverable; is this a library issue? Are we sharing perspectives about this? What kinds of selection criteria.
-research needs; getting faculty involved with providing students with what they're demanding. should we be building resource management tools.
-Content preservation; what should be preserved and what is ephemeral: course management systems aren't designed to be long-term. Long-term storage should be accomplished in a content management issue.
-Copyright as an area of concern
-Training issue and staff training, skills building; training and support
-Alignment of leadership: how resources are distributed, incl. staff.
-What would the changes to the library management systems and course management system have to be with regard to training?
-What are you training on? What is your documentation like?
-Policy issues: legal and cultural policy. Legal: FERPA, TEACH, etc. Cultural: specifying that these things happen with these triggers, etc.

NEGATIVE SPACE
-archiving
-experimentation
-open source

1. Archiving and preservation
2. Legal policy: copyright and privacy, FERPA, HIPAA, TEACH
3. Technical access: authentication and authorization (roles within the organization)
4. Metadata: where does it sit, where does it travel? who is creating, who is receiving?
5. Who are the stakeholders? Who is missing in this discussion? Who decides who sits at the table? How to align with leadership?
6. How should the Library,IT staff work together to support this integrated offering?
7. Training and support
8. Avoiding duplicate content purchasing
9. APIs and interoperability; open source.

2004-03-26T11:06:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 summary notes, J. Duncan

Items for glossary

Learning Objects

Learning Management Systems

Course Management Systems

DAMS

AT - Academic Technology
IT - Used both to describe Instructional Technology and Information Technology
Digital Library Technologist
Systems Librarian/Technologist

netID

Authentication

Thoughts I heard multiple times:
Need for clarified roles among IT/AT and Library positions dealing with
similar "stuff"

Need for improved understanding in the IT community about what
constitutes "library resources."

This is an opportunity to stimulate discussion between records management
people and librarians.

An e-portfolio that follows you through life is "lifelong learning realized."
Heard this from Cliff Lynch and others. Introduces a host of issues related to
archiving, establishing security and "trust," portability...

Need to add to issues: "roles" in CMS and level of access. Example: librarians
with access to CMS courses. IT support individuals with access to be able to
provide support or assistance without compromising student information.

2004-03-26T11:05:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1, unidentified table D

First ten minutes? After introductions and discussions of our expectations, we looked at the list and asked, “What’s left off and why?”

* Web-based tutorials. Why not integrate with Libraries or CMS or both?

* Compliance with TEACH Act? Sure, but why not Patriot Act, too. Where does privacy/FERPA law end?

* Faculty willingness to include librarians as partners.

* Solid economic analysis of the cost of providing metadata.

* We touched briefly on the complications posed by libraries’ licensing requirements of some databases.

* How do you avoid “portal creep”? Is it your CMS? Your library?

General Discussion

Discussion that the sixteen options weren’t equally weighty. Some were yes/no – others have lots of subtopics embedded. One cluster of the 16 deals with organizational structures, another with the kind of problem that will be solved.

* Who will design and implement a metadata training program for faculty/staff who need to apply metadata?

1. Organizationally, who else should be at the “enterprise discussion table”? Possible voices are the AV Services group, the public broadcasting group, the registrar, the archivist? From a user perspective (e.g., faculty or student), our organizational boundaries either are murky or confusing. Indeed, more services will always generate a demand for more and smarter user support services and broader training programs. (Faculty will say: “we don’t want training, we want support when we need it. Somebody needs to answer that phone!”)

2. We didn’t share a common understanding of “learning objects.” We used the example of how many PPT’s are at each university and how we could find out whether any of them might have one or more slides relevant to a faculty member. Does WebCT Vista adequately provide metadata tags?

3. We do not have a clear sense of the economics and scale of applying metadata in an enterprise system. What does it cost a faculty member to produce a PPT slide (depends on the slide – some are lavishly funded by research $$$). But currently we have no way to share at a granular level.

4. Current staffing cuts have forced changes to the contents of librarians’ jobs. Other issues deal with licensing issues (e.g., a database is restricted to students at a particular campus, which affects distance students).

5. As new services are envisioned, how do we get input from faculty BEYOND the early adopters? Sure, there are faculty senate committees – but at what level and in what way is input gathered? Even more critical, how do we get input from Graduate Students on both library and CMS issues? They are very big and important users of both systems.

6. Risk tolerance: how do we tolerate failure? On central infrastructure systems, failure cannot be tolerated. Period. Can you really innovate – or spur innovation – when you’re working on an enterprise scale? Small innovations are easy – scale is always hard. (E.g., Blackboard extensions.)

7. How can the libraries collaborate with faculty on information literacy? How adequately have we estimated students’ information literacy? (Students do not come to university with a mature sense of finding and evaluating information; nor are they very well informed about copyright.)

8. We have said very little about the role and importance of instant messaging among students, both for community-building and for collaboration. Should we have chat rooms for Library communication? Should this be part of the Libraries’ systems, the CMS, or both?

9. We said very little about #8 (content rights management, including digital rights management; compliance with law and policy; TEACH Act).

2004-03-26T10:56:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1, table 7

Anything that the core group has missed?

Under technical and implementation training and support should be added.

**Why is the training left out? how does the integration change training -
documentation and training materials would have to be change?

**Also need to consider support

Library and IT need to interact on training. Dspace at WI, IT and
libraries collaborating in creating training.

Different types, needs and audiences of training - what do we mean by
training?

Find out what people want from integration - what they found was that it
would be nice to merge the documentation and make it part of the CMS.
Volker working on a course for teaching faculty and students what they
need to know about both library and CMS.

Change in culture - how to redesign the online materials to reflect what
students are actually looking for - largest number of hits are e-reserves.

What about workflow? who will do what?
Does anyone's campus have IT and libraries under the same department? Yes,
several. Iowa, MSU.

Perhaps we should discuss the idea of creating more monolithic systems or
breaking the systems down into modular components where possible so that
faculty can assemble what they want

Question about Organizational issues number 4 - navigating trust -
discussion about lack of trust or perhaps trust is not the right word -
turf problem between two units - problems with understanding each other
and communication.

Are the librarians happy with the level of integration at their
institutions?
no - but it's not IT, it is more issues with faculty

Content rights management (8) important - whether doing it commercially or
whether it comes from professor - need to figure it out first. They are
using Dspace at Ohio. Biggest battle is convincing faculty to let other
people use things. Some faculty don't want to share. Until we convince
faculty to buy into content rights management

Some fundamental problems:
1. Thinking about re-using content - faculty don't necessarily think about
that - not necessarily thinking of making that content available to
others. Although Universities are tending to begin to assume ownership of
content created.

2. Parts of the course might be the container that has subparts that are
not authorized for access, etc.

Are we also talking about very disparate systems? Like Dspace is a
learning repository - how do you train faculty where to put what? what
things go in Vista, for example, and what things go in Dspace? Need to
have the ability to define different levels of authentication.

The best policies are not tied to a specific tool, concerned about letting
the technology drive the policy - that is not good.

Policy within institutions? or policies of various institutions coming in
conflict with each other?

Point (8) has huge implications for all the other points. IT and
librarians need to have a shared vision. Currently they have different
agendas and some lack of understanding.

In the content management area one can make shared modules and bring them
into a course - the course is the temporary view of the objects - the
preservation of content happens on the course mgmt side

IT sometimes acting as a go-between between faculty and library - faculty
want students to have a reading list and a search function, IT asks
library to provide those things? At some places the library is not asked
to be involved at all, or they have to deal with requests coming at them.
The library is not asked to be involved in the planning process, just in
providing functionality piecemeal. Library and IT need to work together to
manage the chaos of change.

Users want something different from the library and it comes to libraries
through the back door. Somehow IT and librarians are missing what faculty
need?

Potential for vision at multiple levels - there are lots of different
visions. Vision plays differently within the context of the institution.
Need vision at many levels of the institutions. Faculty have a lot of
autonomy in a lot of institutions - they are used to being autonomous.
Difficult to build consensus with the different individuals. Some faculty
yell louder than others. Further, research institutions are not
necessarily focused on teaching.

Faculty are a bigger issue than library and IT. We basically have no
control over those issues.

Budget is becoming a driving force. Departments are trying to sell courses
to students. Teaching begins to become a money-making endeavor

There is logic that even people who are being pushy, can sell the good of
the institution. Hard sell for faculty.

People come to CMS to do administrative tasks like managing grades,
posting syllabus, sending email to class. The faculty created-stuff seems
to be the focus of what library want to preserve, but is that really worth
preserving?

The content should not necessarily be within the course - it should live
elsewhere.

What do students want? Do they want continued access to their course
materials. Students are driving faculty to put things online. Students
want to be able to see everything online in one place. A lot of the
materials posted online students print out.

Running pilots on annotating online content. students using tablet PCs
(windows journal?) so students can annotate content - downloaded the
content then could highlight it, make notes in margin, etc - then could do
searches in their annotated version of the
Does anyone understand (11) under organizational issues:

Molly sees it as meaning having a vision at the institutions - is there a
clear sense of where we are going with e-learning? are the decisions and
the commitments made at the highest level? is there any direction at other
colleges? (heads shaking "no" around the table)

E-learning has been a grassroots movement at most institutions - gets to
the point where it requires institutional support and policy making - it
needs to be supported and directed at the highest level.

Not all institutions make the same commitment to e-learning - the
competitive drive do do e-learning is not there at all institutions -
different in institutional vision depending on what their goals are -
research institution vs.

Broad range of things one can do with e-learning, and until the
institution makes the decision about how e-learning fits in the larger
scheme, there is no clear message. Some schools not seeing the
institutional vision.

Sometimes the colleges themselves determine how e-learning fits.
Particularly in the professional and graduate programs. Makes sense that
the determination of where e-learning fits happen at the collegiate level.

Colleges and universities that are more homogenous have an easier time
making institutional decisions. If you dig down into each department, it
is a microcosm of the greater institution.

We talked quite a bit about point (3) - stakeholders.

There is interested in Authentication - single signon. IT was not sharing
the technology to set up single sign-on so the library had to develop
their own authentication.

Shibboleth - how do we authenticate people from off campus when we are
giving them

We have a lot of monolithic systems that have different authentication
processes. Might be easier to get one big monolith so don't have to worry
about syncing all the passwords - some institutions have dictated that
they will have single signon and do not support people buying software
that does not support it. Need a secure password, single sign-on needs to
be hosted on secure servers. Students are often not careful with their
login - they'll get logged in and then walk away.

Who is driving single access? At what level is something too much? We used
to ask students to go to different floors to get different books.

Single sign-on is driven from all sides - IT wants it as much as the
users. IT goal to reduce the number of passwords. Single sign-on not
necessarily the term they use. Iowa calls it simple signon.

Some campuses are further along in the discussion about whether they want
all the systems to talk together and be integrated - reduce the clicks,
seamlessness, transparent to the user. Also reduces calls to support to
reset multiple passwords.

Schools have been audited - per auditors, they are now required to change
the secure password every 90, 60, or 30 days. Some schools have an e-mail
address where you can get confirmation sent, and other.

New question - do institutions populate courses with library links? or let
faculty add their own links? some are populating CMS course sites with
links to the e-reserves and reading lists for those courses.

Some are using Xythos network file management system

A big concern is what if the aggregator drops the article or pulls the
journal? Some schools buy full rights to protect themselves from this
problem - they buy archive rights.

2004-03-26T10:54:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion, table 8

IMPORTANT EXISTING ISSUES:

-Training and staffing, particularly on the Library side. IT side has done some reallocation but has also had to ask for more staff. Perhaps this is an issue in 5.

-Metadata

-Standards

-Copyright policy

-Outreach and publicity

-Open source

-Duplicating purchased content: are they going directly to faculty? XanEDU, etc. Some charge the students directly.

NEW ISSUES
-Import and export tools and components, including intelligent content linking.

-What does integration mean? Seamlessness between systems.

-Balance between seamless/transparent publishing and branding/identification/provenance of resources.

-Add FACULTY to the list of Library/IT in any mention of partnerships.

-Are institutions REALLY going to archive courses over the long term?

LIST OF TERMS
-Subject guides
-Portal
-JSTOR
-EReserves (as a service vs. as a piece of technology)
-SFX
-OpenURL
-Metadata
-IMS
-Dublin Core
-Crosswalks/mappings
-Subject specialist
-processing
-SCORM: sharable content object reference model (Advanced Distributed Learning)
-API's
-OKI: Open Knowledge Initiative
-MARC

2004-03-12T16:38:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: Table 4

Are these 16 items appropriate? Is there an issue that is not reflected?

2Way Communication:
-how do we get our user community to tell us about our needs
-how do we get instructors to inform students of library resources/services
-usability, student needs, student perspectives

-University of Michigan: a lot of organizational autonomy
-Ereserves @ library vs. CMS model - how do we integrate and collaborate on services?
-Educational technology people not knowing that library/librarians want to be contacted within CMS (because the Ed. Tech people DON'T) i.e. different cultures
-Who is the driver of this?
-Students don't want to leave Bb environment and anything less than that is unacceptable
-Authentication for dfferent systems - so that "integration" of systems appears seamless
-Younger people accept and expect an integrated world
-Authentication; single interface. Is the CMS THE interface that we should be using? is a portal the way to go?
-Whatever the interface is, it should have portal-like qualities
-The difference between library stuff that I need for this class vs. the library
-Course-integrated instruction. If it's for the class, it's in the class. Organizing principle for the student is the CLASS
-Loss of identity for library when content is incorporated seamlessly into CMS?
-Questions about what library can and cannot know e.g. privacy issues. Librarians cannot go into course site, make modifications, because they cannot "see" who's enrolled (shouldn't). Strictly speaking, the faculty member doesn't have the right to grant access privileges to the librarian

Defining success for collaboration between library and CMS
-do student need to know where content/services in CMS come from?
-use statistics for library content/services from w/in CMS can be used to bolster support/money for library
-Branding of services: is it necessary?

-"help" services for CMS and library - how do we coordinate these services? how do we direct students to proper place to get their questions answered?

ORG. ISSUES #2
-Discussion of learning objects, definition of CMS vs. LMS

-What are the roles of library and IT in the management of CMS/LMS? Should IT be responsible? Building knowledge bank/course archives. Librarians are essential to cataloging/metadata-ing these knowledge banks

-We need heavier tools for automatic extraction of data, so that we use humans to make decisions that have to be made by humans.

-Tiers of decision-making for different learning objects. Extraction of metadata via a tool for most content. When it goes into archive/knowledge bank, that's when the librarian would go in to make sure metadata is correct.

FEATURES document
-What's institutional vs. what's license?
-Priorities -- 11)chat and online reference service
-What do we mean by "integrating" these features? Could it be simply a link?
-What about copyright? what about academic integrity guide?
-Some of these features don't seem to be library or IT priorities
-CMS being about courses vs. the campus - what is its purpose?
-Need for sensitivity/currency of terminology e.g. 1) bibliographic instruction online (training).
-These features appear to be automating already existing things - e.g. how do we offer synchronous teaching on a database
-highlighting subject specialists in CMS
-Imp. to map the physical library - making a connection from the course site to the proper library, to the proper librarian

Are there services/resources that aren't listed?
-For faculty: a request module for EReserves so that the request will come to the place where the reserve material will actually reside. A printing module info.
-Request a librarian to come to my class
-Ask an expert - who's my librarian to help me design my course/research component of my course?
-Librarians need to give faculty access to information literacy resources (so the librarian doesn't have to do everything). i.e. the library providing a bank of learning objects that go beyond basic subject guides. But how do we keep these learning objects in synch when something changes?

Clarification needed for services: 7, 9, 10

Records management for the University should be added to the list
-Partnerships the library has on campus that support learning e.g. writing centers - how do we integrate all of these?

Are there things that IT needs?
-a clearly defined list w/ a few priorities
-what do we mean by "integrating" - linking out vs. residing in the course site.

2004-03-12T15:53:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: unlabeled table C

Issues
-Teams to support faculty development from both library and IT; get instructors to work with librarians to get e-reserves etc. in CMS
-Have separate social culture, Library It. How to get social organizations to integrate? Also integration of tools and systems to one place. Noone knows everything that is going on (communication)
-People don't know what library does: customer awareness
-Lack of awareness of resources available. How do you get people to connect with all the resources available?
-How to we integrate resources so that they make sense and seamlessly
-Faculty prefer self-serve rather than talking to use - don't need the library
-Faculty want to learn what they want only when they need it - don't want training till they need it. Don't understand copyright issues
-One-stop shopping. Seamless integration
-How do we educate faculty right at the beginning about issues: -orientation to CMS, copyright, services from library, resources from library, prior to developing CMS course
-Online class won't get faculty tenure - so why care how the class turns out?
-How to integrate technology into teaching
-How to get faculty to understand needs for proxies and authentication. Development persistent URLs. Less clicking. More complicated it is for students and faculty: less likely they will use resources; path of least resistance.
-How are CMS improving teaching and learning? What about integrating systems will improve teaching and learning? How do you improve learning with CMS?
-IT and Library are trying to solve the same problems from different angles. Different expertise that provides improved service
-How can CMS provide an opportunity for improved library instruction for students over classroom instruction
-Faculty don't think to go to the library to get someone to help them teach the course or set up CMS - libraries need to appear as a more fun place.
-Faculty don't come in to the library because it is online?
-Things are changing in terms of what students expect - entertain
-Libraries don't provide physical space for word processing. Labs are not in library. They are in the IT departments.

2004-03-12T15:40:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: unlabeled Glossary A

Publishing system
Textbook
Provenance
Lifecycle of learning objects
Stewardship
APIs
Secure computing
Pedagogy
IT
Accessible
Persistency
Link resolvers
Metadata
Academic technology or instructional technologyLMS vs CMS
Institutional repository
Digital Asset Management System
Content rights management
Digital rights management
Archival
Library on "receiving end" (Cliff Lynch phrase)

2004-03-12T15:33:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: unlabeled table B

We need an initial step that discusses what our needs are e.g. - do students need/want these features? -do faculty want to share their material?

Missing
-simplicity of use (importance of this as a starting point)
-do standards exist *important to put back on list - need to establish what would be needed as standards - need to begin with best practices
-how do instructors take this and put it into practice?
-how many of us are doing usability studies to see what faculty really want? How many universities consulted faculty when choosing systems?
-Who is paying for what has changed: printing, textbooks
-Organizational issue #3: stakeholders: CIO, faculty, students, library. IT & Lib. have different interpretations of faculty and staff
-Ramifications for what we are doing that are outside our own needs, e.g. single sign-on.
-Authentication is the tip of the iceberg. After single signon, what can you do, and how do we manage that?
-What is university's role in pushing these agenda? Not just how they support collaboration between IT, Lib but how do they push faculty to work differently. Who takes responsibility for copyright issues and enforcing particular legal interpretations.
-Archiving is such a can of worms should we initially just focus on the importance of building systems you can extract data from?
-Build metadata wizard that is as easy to use as possible and does what faculty do anyway e.g. to put up article fill out a form /author & title instead of typing that info onto a web page as a link.
-Faculty don't know what metadata is but they are interested in describing things
-Need syllabi builders and reading list builders that automatically create reading lists from filling out a form. Then it formats it for them and we get metadata
-Ability for CMS software to implement different policies for different communities of interest (e.g. Hum Div. requires syllabi be open but Med School doesn't')
-How can we integrate tools for creating metadata and to manage digital rights and making these a 'carrot' for faculty so they use it

FOR THE GLOSSARY:
-Middleware, API, SFX

2004-03-12T15:25:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: unlabeled table A

Omitted:
-student input -- emerging consumer
-slow rate of change - faculty-culture clash - Lib's/IT's change agents
-students' rapid technology adoption pace
-Library can serve as a catalyst for change through other introductions
-Faculty active involvement, buy-in - varies according to discipline What makes this attractive/useful/effective? Add value to their teaching. Target new faculty - "next generation of professoriate" addresses IT Lib learning technology tools, faculty get paid for attending, get equipment budget
-Minnesota, Iowa, UIC: mentoring component
-Learning communities: faculty, students, librarian: some collateral but important points to consider: scaling up chat reference, subject specialists needed to offer specialized
-demands vs. resource allocation
-Executive leadership needs to get faculty input
-In institution thinking about results of collaborative effort? Does deployment and vendor choice have an impact on faculty involvement? Impact of type of CMS on its use within an institution?
-Security and privacy issues: students, faculty, librarians. CMS, chats, weblogs. Policy, and technical issues.
-No pedagogical component.

2004-03-12T14:21:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: table 5
Establish framework of issues
Other issues
-Teams to support faculty development; co-location of support [support in college/dept, center for teaching, library & faculty]
-Do the right people talk with the right counterparts? Top people talk, but not lower down
-Who has authority to make decisions?
-Communication and customer awareness/service: 1)front end is customer service: a business 2)back end is technical (CMS, A/V, Media classrooms, learning environment, digitla media lab)
-How to get faculty aware of what's available? Both for AT and library reources
-Can there be a library resource button in MCS?
-Do faculty prefer self-serve? Want to create their own personal digital library? One-stop shopping? What does this have to do with teaching or the core mission of the university? Why do faculty use the library or CMS? Make life easier or help with tenure
-Faculty want: seamless use; minimize clicks for students; persistent URLs, where is assignment is, not where readings are' direct link from catalog to full text
-Why do we want to integrate these systems? How do we know faculty and students want integration?
-Core mission: educate more efficiently?
-Are there examples of improving teaching/learning w/integration of library resources?
-Bring in outside expertise/
-It's more than the sum of the parts when things are integrated.
-Ho to get faculty to do it? Shift to working w/grad students? In dissertation process, etc. Train new faculty, not retirees
-Overlap b/t information and technology literacy - personalized services?
-Curricular change
-Do libraries need to be more fun? Public relations

MAIN THEMES/ISSUES
-Things are changing on the campus, in student expectations. In how students learn or expect to have information delivered
-Integration - system is more than the sum of its parts, staff shortages, faculty want one-stop shopping. My boss told me to - higher level admin things it's a good idea. Integration is a broader theme across campus -- creating new efficiences. Systems dependent on each other
-Are library and CMS working at different sides of the same problems?
-We're all connected. Need to have others involved to do our own work. Need CRKT
-AT and library frequently co-located.
-Students still asking questions, different kinds of questions b/c of more complex environments
-Need more data to be able to see trends

2004-03-12T14:12:00.000-06:00

Conference day 1 discussion: table 4 glossary

Glossary terms: API, authentication, authorization, learning object, content object, CMS vs. LMS vs ILS, SCORM, IMS (the organization), institutional repository vs asset management systems,