Context & Common Issues

1. • Institutions invest in developing instructional software without provisions for: • - Quality Control • - Dissemination • - Sustainability Context & Common Issues • Faculty often work in isolation while developing online courses • Lack of quality, interactive, web-based learning materials

2. MERLOT Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching

3. What is ? MERLOT MERLOT’s mission is to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning by expanding the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed online learning materials that can be easily incorporated into faculty designed courses.

4. MERLOT Assumptions • Faculty are, and should remain, in control of the teaching/learning process. • Faculty want and deserve better mechanisms to document their contributions to teaching and learning. • Faculty-led peer review processes are the key to expanding the use and effectiveness of digital learning materials. • States, systems, consortia, and individual institutions can collectively learn and share with each other, thus maximizing their investments in instructional IT.

5. Review & AssessLearning Components Post/Host Learning Components Solicit Learning Components Develop Discipline Communities Track & Assess Usage MERLOT Major Activities Result • High Quality Learning Components • Support for Faculty Development

6. MERLOT A Taste of

7. Educators Authors Reviewers Faculty Support MERLOT Perspectives

8. Scenario 1: Intro physics class is in 20 minutes Topic: Random motion of gas atoms Temperature and pressure Need: Visual demonstration of topic Bonus: Student access to demo

9. Scenario 2: Preparation for Fall Semester Course Topics: Classical mechanics, fluids Waves and oscillations Needs: Class demonstrations Interactive homework Advanced topics & readings Supplemental material

10. http://www.merlot.org Solutions

11. Ease of Use • Quick, reliable, efficient searches • Standard topic organization Added Value • One-stop shopping • Testing and reviews of material • Examples of material use Feedback • Contact with authors, reviewers, users Users’ Needs

12. Scholarly Recognition • Basis for tenure/promotion/retention • Standards and quality control • Advertisements, break the “N. I. H.” syndrome Feedback • Correct existing errors • Recommendations for upgraded material • New ideas Authors’ Perspective

13. Authors’ Comments “I have been on a crusade for 3 years with the professional societies to host a peer reviewed curriculum web server but alas, they a) didn't grok and b) didn't care…” “...so I think the MERLOT approach is great, no matter how cumbersome the initial steps are…” “I am interested in MERLOT. What you are doing looks great.” “… I think the site is a very valuable resource for science educators. I look forward to benefiting from and contributing to the site as a member.”

14. Reviewers’ Perspective • Enthusiasm • • Developing standards where none exist • • Recognizing areas of need • • Providing feedback to authors • Dread • • So much to do, so few people • • MERLOT is premature

15. Building Discipline Communities Professional Societies AUTHORS USERS REVIEWERS

16. A way to reach the “other 80%” Ease of use Reduce time commitment Lessen the demands on local support staff Faculty Development/Support

17. Online Community Starter Kit (OCSK) Continuous Improvement Process Development Team Future Directions MERLOT Software Overview

18. Online Community Starter Kit • Allows groups to build their own “online communities” • Provides for connecting “communities” • Relatively easy to start up • Is modifiable, given the right expertise • Runs on a variety of platforms • Can handle heavy traffic

19. Multiple OCSKs on one server Category scheme unifies separate sites Automated link checking Robust & Scaleable Technology

20. Library of Congress categories IMS metadata Java Servlets, HTML, JavaScript Database: SQL, JDBC OS: Unix, NT, Mac OSX Based on Open Standards

21. Continuous Improvement Process • Monitor discipline groups and MERLOT “feedback” link for user needs/issues • Dialog with individuals/groups to clarify needs, possible options • Prototype/test solutions offline • Usability testing

22. Manager Programmer Designer Librarian Center for Usability in Design and Assessment OCSK Development Team

23. • Bring up the discipline sites • Improve browsing by subject • Allow for multiple categorization of materials • Simplify the home page design • Expand the number of item types Future Directions

24. MERLOT • Engaging Faculty in Discipline-Based Evaluation & Use of Online Learning Materials • Providing Tools and Processes to Ensure Teaching-Learning Success • Managing Our Collaboration More Than a Collection of URLs

25. Schedule of Participant Activities Meetings Date Location Project Directors Meeting July 17-18, 2000 Denver Discipline Leader Training August 22-23, 2000 Salt Lake Discipline Group Faculty September 14-16, 2000 Nashville Faculty Developers November, 2000 Ann Arbor All Advisory Boards January 30-31, 2001 New Orleans MERLOT National Conference August, 8-11, 2001 Tampa All Advisory Boards January, 26-28, 2002 San Diego MERLOT National Conference September, 26-30, 2002 Atlanta

26. Conducting Peer Reviews September workshop for faculty learning how to perform peer reviews: • Adopting evaluation standards - quality of content - potential effectiveness for teaching-learning - ease of use • Developing their peer review process • Understanding their roles and responsibilities as MERLOT reviewers

27. Bringing MERLOT Home November workshop for your faculty development personnel: • How to use MERLOT to achieve your institution’s academic technology goals - peer review processes - guidelines for online learning assignments - guidelines for online communications - guidelines for engaging faculty with MERLOT

28. Continuous Improvement Advisory meetings of project directors and discipline co-leaders at EDUCAUSE/NLII in January: • Progress reports • Continued planning • Issues resolution

29. National MERLOT Meeting Sharing lessons learned and inviting more faculty to learn about MERLOT. Reports from: • MERLOT administrative group • MERLOT project directors • Discipline communities • Individual faculty reviewers

30. MERLOT will be the place where faculty from around the world will share learning materials and pedagogy The Vision

31. Organizing Principles • The MERLOT community will be built upon the principle of open exchange of ideas. • The goal will be to develop a sustainable business model that will maintain free or low-cost access to end-users.

32. MERLOT “Ecosystem” University Systems Sponsors Individual institutions Partners MERLOT Professional organizations Faculty members Students Advertisers Grant-Making Organisations Legend Staff Existing members Potential members

33. Critical Success Factors • Conducting peer reviews that are credible and add value • Maintaining free or low-cost access to end-users • Sustaining in-kind contributions from participants • Using grants and sponsorships to expand scope (The “NPR” Model) • Making connections to discipline associations

34. Phase 2: Development Phase 3: Self-Sufficiency Phase 1: Start-up Timeframe Timeframe Timeframe • 2001-2002 • Present - Early 2001 • 2003 - Beyond Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics • MERLOT develops strong marketing presence • Aggressively recruit staff, including management • Structure is established and employee roles are defined • MERLOT is moving to an independent status • Employees will play multiple roles until Merlot is fully staffed • Reliant on founding organizations for support • MERLOT is “the place” for faculty who care about teaching and learning. • Greater organizational self-sufficiency Objectives Objectives • To generate a substantial amount of traffic • To attract revenues from advertisers, including corporate entities • To enable users to access a range of products and services via MERLOT’s ecosystem Objectives • To elevate user base to higher volumes • To circulate credible peer reviews • To attract new customers & build brand recognition • To broaden membership base and host content • To create a governing board • To hire a CEO • To recruit 16 new members • To secure start-up funds .’s Evolution: 3 Stages MERLOT Source: MERLOT data, PwC Analysis.

35. MERLOT Funding sources that could potentially consider …. Potential Funding Sources Summary Conclusions 1) Philanthropic and corporate grants Philanthropic and corporate grants represent a natural starting point for not-for-profit funding 2) In-kind contributions Leverage founding member contributions and enable individual faculty to contribute content 3) Meetings and conferences Provide revenue, but may not cover costs Scalable, and facilitate projection of revenues; may extend to faculty and students 4) Memberships 5) Advertising & Sponsorships High traffic volume will drive substantial revenues 6) Value-added services (e.g. training, consulting) Allows differentiation from rivals, but may lead MERLOT away from core mission

36. Early 2001 Administration External Relations Programs IT Organization & Staffing ModelPhase II: “Development” MERLOT Board of Directors Administrative Advisory Group CEO Executive Assistant Faculty Advisory Group • programming • design • maintenance • coordination • of review panels • faculty development • content mgmt & development • budget, G/L • HR • financial reporting • member relations • strategic alliances • marketing

37. MERLOT Discipline Groups Teacher Ed Biology Physics Business Information Technology Psychology Chemistry Engineering Music Health Sciences History Math Languages

38. Faculty Compensation • Suggest 3 units of reassigned time or stipend for 7 group members • Suggest 1/2 time reassigned time for 1 co-leader • Travel expenses to MERLOT events (see schedule of activities) Participation Agreement

39. Participation Agreement Intellectual Property • Rights to learning materials remain with their owners • Rights to use ratings, reviews, and assignments assigned to MERLOT • Participant must secure consent from faculty for MERLOT to use the ratings, reviews, and assignments

40. • Demonstration of clear commitment to the project • Alignment with system or institutional priorities • Plans to integrate MERLOT within existing initiatives • Diversity of organizational type and size Participant Selection Criteria Applicants in excess of slots will be phased in at later date

41. Key Benefits to Participation Your MERLOT: Participants maximize MERLOT’s benefits by shaping it to fit their needs Faculty Development: Provides faculty with powerful instructional technology resource and documents contributions to teaching Online Teaching and Learning: Increases institutional focus on online teaching and learning

42. Key Benefits to Participation Leveraging Resources: By joining a collaborative environment, participants benefit from the work of many faculty IT Investments: Provides guidelines to institutions for their instructional technology investments