[CSG Fall 2008] Evolution of ID Cards, Physical Access Control & Two-Factor Auth Deployments

Paul Hill – MIT At one school a student was duplicating cards including mag stripes, which allowed purchasing. Under state laws that was considered a credit card breach, so had to notify effected parties. Other issues that have arisen: Vendors accepting cards – point of sales terminals display remaining balance on cards, showing to clerk, … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Evolution of ID Cards, Physical Access Control & Two-Factor Auth Deployments”

Paul Hill – MIT

At one school a student was duplicating cards including mag stripes, which allowed purchasing. Under state laws that was considered a credit card breach, so had to notify effected parties.

Other issues that have arisen: Vendors accepting cards – point of sales terminals display remaining balance on cards, showing to clerk, the purchaser, and all the other people in line.

At one school a student project revealed security flaws in the transit pass card system while the school was working with the transit system to use campus ID cards as transit passes – the transit system then declined to continue working with the school.

Bill, from Georgetown – at Georgetown security controls and access systems are now under control of IT department, consolidated from multiple departments around campus.

From survey – everyone is centralizing card systems. Some have multiple places issuing cards, e.g. the library.

At MIT they’re loading all the pictures from ID Cards into the data warehouse, but there are lots of rules around who can access them. At UCSD all faculty can have access to (all) student pictures, and get them on class lists. Most places allow faculty access to photos of students in their classes. At Princeton students provide their own photo, and they can opt-out of publishing the photo. At Stanford there’s almost no opt-out. Klara notes that at Duke as they make the pictures more available they’re starting to see more requests for vanity photos.

[CSG Fall 2008] Copyright Compliance at all levels

Greg – Audible Magic at Chicago (Greg Jackson) – In February put it in front of one of the dorms. Would it behave itself on the network? Did it look like it was detecting things it should and not detect things it shouldn’t? Looked benign on network (they didn’t turn on the TCP reject spoofing … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Copyright Compliance at all levels”

Greg – Audible Magic at Chicago (Greg Jackson) – In February put it in front of one of the dorms. Would it behave itself on the network? Did it look like it was detecting things it should and not detect things it shouldn’t? Looked benign on network (they didn’t turn on the TCP reject spoofing feature). Has a way of deducing kind of traffic from source/destination matching as well, which turned out to work remarkably well, even for encrypted p2p streams. Taught them that there is a hugely problematic issue with p2p, which isn’t copyright infringement but pornography.

Worked well enough that they bought two Audible Magic boxes and put them on their commodity pipes. Running them in passive mode and observing. Haven’t yet decided what to do – won’t block traffic, but might do a BAYU type thing.

Tracy – take note of Grooveshark, which may or may not be legal.

Mark Luker – Proposed Experiment/Pilot in “Voluntary Blanket Licensing” for online access to music.

Warner Music Group approached AAU – looking for universities that would be interested in pilot project. Already talked with Colorado (contacted University communications group).

Goal – lets students access and use music any way they want to – get it any way you can. Use on any hardware. Generate fair returns to content owners. Avoid DMCA notices, lawsuits, etc.

How? Students access and use music any way they want. Institutions make a reasonable effort to estimate the number of downloads per song. Might monitor traffic through a cache, statistical sampling ok, determined by the campus, experimentation encouraged. Institutions collect/fund/amass a pot of money (e.g. per student per month), as determined by the campus, all students or none. A non-profit organization distributes the money proportioately to content owners – all major labels and an indie association are members, covers all rights holders for the music, “prices” TBD.

Content owners refrain from all DMCA notices and lawsuits. Not really licensing, but a “covenant not to sue”.

Possible complication – simplest if accepted by all HE and ISPs. If not must avoid massive leakage from those that are covered to others that are not.

Tracy wonders about whether this model will lead to ever-growing fees in the future as it provides competition to the existing legal services.

Steve Worona is proposing that CSG write one or more position papers on some topics of interest in the copyright front.

[CSG Fall 2008] Policy Discussion: Mobile & Converged Device Plans

Andrew Yu from MIT starts off the discussion by loioking at the Mobile Device landscape. BlakBerry is dominant platform, followed by iPhone in US. Then WIndows Mobile. Palm OS is dying out, Symbian is not offered by any US carriers currently, Android will be coming on soon. Bill Clebsch – Stanford. What is a converged … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Policy Discussion: Mobile & Converged Device Plans”

Andrew Yu from MIT starts off the discussion by loioking at the Mobile Device landscape. BlakBerry is dominant platform, followed by iPhone in US. Then WIndows Mobile. Palm OS is dying out, Symbian is not offered by any US carriers currently, Android will be coming on soon.

Bill Clebsch – Stanford. What is a converged device? People feel their landlines no longer offer value. Some kind of tradeoff needs to be made to capture the revenue stream. Multiple identities are important to people – home vs. work. People need their device to serve different needs at different times – people’s university number to ring to their cell at some times but not others. But people need less devices. Launching pilot with AT&T to make calls over wifi networks and route.

Andy Palms – Michigan – intent is to redirect funds being spent on landlines. Currently majority of devices are owned individually – want to be able to leverage that to provide the enterprise telephone service.

Jim Jolkl – Virginia – Need to figure out how to control what people get on their phones.

Andrew – MIT tried out Nokia E61 devices – but people weren’t familiar with them. Would be nice to have a single device for fixed-mobile convergence. Likely to take 2-3 years for devices to support wifi calling, not dropping when moving to cellular, etc. MIT working on mobile web applications. Launched in June, traffic growing exponentially. Traffic is 70% iPhone.

Klara asks whether universities have had any luck in persuading carriers to open up the application space universally on their phones. Short answer is no.

MIT working with Gemalto on programmable universal sim cards.

[CSG Fall 2008] SOA Panel

Michael Gettes, MIT – Approaching SOA as Service Oriented Applications. MAP (the MIT Application Platform) includes language stacks for both Java, looking at PHP, nothing to prevent others. WEb services so far: MIT ID (query / create), PersonLookup, Geo (look up zip codes), Roles, Groups, Textbook, Course Catalog, Who’s Teaching What, Events Calendar, COEUS ESB: … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] SOA Panel”

Michael Gettes, MIT – Approaching SOA as Service Oriented Applications. MAP (the MIT Application Platform) includes language stacks for both Java, looking at PHP, nothing to prevent others. WEb services so far: MIT ID (query / create), PersonLookup, Geo (look up zip codes), Roles, Groups, Textbook, Course Catalog, Who’s Teaching What, Events Calendar, COEUS

ESB: Threat or Menace? Apps can now blame the ESB provider when things break – are we just moving the blame?

Parvis Dousti, Carnegie Mellon – Student Services at Cernegie Mellon

– Tried writing it in J2EE, then heard about Kuali Student and fell in love with that, but before that looked at ERP choices – decided that wouldn’t do it.

– Phase 1, worked with IBM who helped with Business Process Modeling. About 500 service candidates came out of that. Asked the question of “Is the world ready for us? (are the pieces out there if you don’t have to write it all yourselves). Answer is not really, so slowed down project, defining six tracks: 1. Build a solution for only 2 business processes; 2. Migration strategies; 3. Build a governance modela nd insfrastructure; 4. Re-engage with Kuali Student; 5. Ongoing

2 Processes – Student Billing & Account Aging

Are we ready for SOA? Skills, and Organization (relationship of IT and Business domains).

Elazar Harel – UCSD

SOA Framework at UCSD

Drivers – Agility and growth, faster development and deployment, product consistency, performance, integration, technology independence and neutrality.

Been about 8 years since they started SOA development. Moved to Java in year 2000, but had five years of legacy web code. Built a JLink framework, starting with common look and feel across central apps. Wanted to have a SSO environment. Also have legacy mainframe apps and wanted a lightweight bus to that. In 2003 started working with SOAP and building web services to mainframe. Also built a graphical tool to allow developers to create web services. Implemented SHib for SSO, and a simple workflow product called My Approvals, and in 2005 a lightweight service bus, and last year introduced roles.

Identity management – Authentication, People, and Roles.

Future – want to get away from building their own things. Joined the Kuali Rice initiative without commitment to any of the applications. Goals – use the same framework that other people use, sharing apps within the UC community, and being ready to use Kuali apps if / when the campus decides to do that.

Food for thought – Governance – increase organizational discipline, process oriented; Way of working – build to change, may not reduce costs, requires vision, organization and management, not for everything.

JR Schulden – UC Berkeley –

About 8 years of writing web services, but weren’t structured, documented, inventoried, reviewed, or widely shared. Got out of control quickly.

SOA is next step – Software Goal – Quality, Speed, Flexibility.

Trends – increasingly complex and changing business processes. Increasingly tech savvy business partners, an increase in dept/unit development of mission critical systems. A decrease in resources while increase in IT demands.

Became a founder of Kuali Student – gave 2 architects and 2 developers to project.

Looking for more developers, less architects.

Finding that it’s hard for functional people to think abstractly – so they’re getting better with practice.

Using RICE in many cases, but not all, in Kuali Student. How to keep infrastructure upgraded while many apps rely on it is a challenge.

Challenges: Semantic Interoperability (we don’t speak the same language); Culture (not invented here, not under my control), Business Processes, Resources and funding models, Staffing (new skill sets, a fresh look, back-filling key positions, business analysts are rarer than we thought, to succeed is not about “central resources”, but about “campus resources”).

There are many immature technologies – e.g. BPEL.

“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. Bu, in practice there is.” – Yogi Berra

In the discussion Elazar brings up the issue of functionality running in the cloud, like their new procurement system (SyQuest), which offers web services functionality and integrates with their SSO.

There’s a lively discussion in the backchannel chat room about REST vs. SOAP, specifically around the issues of whether programatically generated WSDLs for SOAP are usable in multiple interfaces from different lnaguages – there seems to be some agreement that hand-designed and coded WSDL is what works, so if you have to hand code it anyway, why not just do REST? Paul Hill points out that well-designed WSDL can be easy to consume with automated tools.

[CSG Fall 2008] Non-Enterprise Initiatives of SOA

Services that are reliable, specific, small, secure, stable, standards-based and reusable.

SOA slated at Stanford –

Remedy – Stanford uses it heavily in the central IT office for order fulfillment and billing, and tracking some labor hours. They want to expose it as a service to replace brittle current integrations. Will allow new functionality. They’re building a Remedy-Zimbra integration

Tom Barton is talking about SOA at Chicago.

No bigg app yet, but the want to be prepared. They thingk web services seems like a good approach to solving some problems. Their early experience is that even with a single simple service, there are lots of issues.

WS & ID management – Identifier translation – translate among ChicagoID, SSN, NEtID, hospital ID, alumID, studentID, etc. Also did an account management integration project with the hospital.

Net of early experience – concentrate on functionality, not underlying data stores. Loose coupling allows nice divisions of labor.

Data services – might provide good technology for providing data across the institution. A combination of reporting & WS capabilities.

Steps toward first SOA – look for cowpaths in institutional data – a relatively small set of objects that reflect the way we think about our businesses. Choose web services to reinforce a common data model across systems. Facing infrastructure choices, like servlet platform, esb, etc and development framework.

Designing Grouper’s WS Interfaces –

It takes 4 WS interface styles to please enough adopters – SOAP vs. REST, and heavy capabilities vs. lightweight ones.

[CSG Fall 2008] SOA Architecture workshop – Jim Phelps (Wisconsin)

Jim Phelps (Wisconsin) is introducting Service Oriented Architecture. 4 years ago they went to their board and stated that SOA was their direction, and since then they spent a lot of time spinning wheels – it’s like a thousand pound stone that you push and push and push and it moves an inch, then you … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] SOA Architecture workshop – Jim Phelps (Wisconsin)”

Jim Phelps (Wisconsin) is introducting Service Oriented Architecture.

4 years ago they went to their board and stated that SOA was their direction, and since then they spent a lot of time spinning wheels – it’s like a thousand pound stone that you push and push and push and it moves an inch, then you move away and realize you have five miles to go.

SOA is a maturity state you need to reach, not a technology roll-out.

Using their Course Guide as a case study. http://www.registrar.wisc.edu/courseguide/

What is the course guide? Changes in official course descriptions take lots of bureacracy, curriculum committees, etc. Departments have lots more detailed description, and the instructors have even more detail. Want to bring that in, plus syllabi and textbooks into one spot. Want to give students ability to put those into favorites list (like an Amazon Wish List), and give departments and advisors the ability to gather and publish lists (e.g. good courses for non-majors). Also want the ability to add notes (remember to take this next spring). Then give depts the ability to send notices to students who have a given course as a favorite. Can send courses to a scheduler that can suggest schedules, or to degree audit system, etc.

Architecture – course guide sits at the center of lots of things, don’t want to build a silo with lots of flat file feeds. Want to avoid building a service that nobody uses. Enter once, use many times, leverage “Selfish Altruism” (if I’m already building it for my own web site, allow it to be leveraged). Can build it “right” or build it “fast”. Decided to build it “right”.

SOA – A style of application design, not a technology. Not an application stack. Based on shared, reusable services – not point-to-point web services. Services represent some business or technical function. Not a buy/build decision, but something you grow into.

Sources – Student Info System (peoplesoft), on top of which sits an operational data store called Curricular Hub (CHUB). Bringing up a content management system, in which people will build departmental descriptions. There’s a schedule system, and then other systems like library, etc.

There’s an enterprise service bus.

UI is the university portal.

There’s an orchestration engine, a portlet app engine and a database that stores local state info.

Lots of orchestration that has to be written, but less application writing.

Need to have lots of infrastructure to build an app.

Klara notes that the ERP systems don’t store the data in ways that are meaningful outside their own apps, so need to be reflected in operational data stores. Jim agrees and says that the additional layer of abstraction allows for load management. Wisconsin keeps the CHUB updated every few minutes, and would like to get it to near-real-time, but they can back off updates if the student system is under heavy load (like during registration).

Maturity states (from Enterprise Architecture As Strategy book) – 1. Business Silos 2. Standardized Technology 3. Optimized Core (an important step in moving towards SOA – agreement on what processes you work on and agree on data models) and 4. Business Modularity.

Enterprise Maturity – what’s important processes to fix, what should the data look like, etc. You would think that an institution would know what a course roster should be, but it’s taken many discussions.

Issues –

Skills – lots of people in the organization have built applications, but this looks very different – especially the orchestration portion. A lot has to do with Business Process Analysis and Improvement – not necessarily a skill of coders. There are some standards, BPML, BPMN, BPEL. These are new skills.

Building these apps is a lot more orchestration and assembly, not top-down coding.

There are also a lot of issues around scope and trust in managing these projects – control of the dependent layers are not under the control of a single manager. Hard to get people to focus on the service requirements and trusting the providers to do their work, rather than getting lost in the weeds of pieces that aren’t in your control.

Funding – A lot of what we do is product-focused funding, but SOA is about funding infrastructure. Who pays to build out web services? The first project to use it? Central funding? Gather everybody who might use the services and get community funding? People say “not me first”. In this case they funded it themselves with support from the budget and registrar offices, who bore part of the cost because they see the value in the process. Shel points out the difficulty in creating cost models that properly allocate the parts of the infrastructure to the uses of the applications. Jack Duwe notes that the funding model is important, and that there’s no sane way to fund the infrastructure other than centrally. Tom Barton says that this problem is not unique to SOA, but is common to many modern technologies that require lots of infrastructure, like virtualized servers. Shel asks whether central funding will allow for enough funding to really support this, and wonders how we create a shared sense of ownership for that integration layer.

In response to a question, Jim says that he things there needs to be an “Integration Competency Center” where the expertise and responsibility for the services layer lives.

Klara says that this model also breaks our notion of who the functional “owner” of an application is. Greg notes that it’s the institution that owns the services, not any functional group. Ron Kraemer says that it’s important that the funding model have different components that get treated separately, including having some funds for the CIO able to allocate for unforeseen eventualities. Bob says that in order to justify funding you have to have adoption with enthusiasts who actually gain something early from using the service.

Requires some organizational maturity among the players at the institution to agree on shared requirements to avoid the “Me first now!” syndrome. The motto is Design for the Enterprise.

Governance – do we need some levels of governance that are not about individual stewards? Wisconsin hasn’t dealt with that yet.

Change management – how do you decide when you can change services? You need to track who’s using services, but what happens when they don’t agree on changes?

Why do this?

Transparency – think about being able to know who is consuming which pieces of data – a great advantage.

Agility – allows you to cope with changes quickly and roll out new services that knit together composite applications.

[CSG Fall 2008] Collaborative Applications and Infrastructure Panel

My notes are spotty here because I’m on this panel Klara is talking about the challenges they face at Duke – they had education materials about how faculty could use Web 2.0 systems, but then it became clear that faculty wanted the institution to provision those spaces in similar ways. Now they are dealing with … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Collaborative Applications and Infrastructure Panel”

My notes are spotty here because I’m on this panel

Klara is talking about the challenges they face at Duke – they had education materials about how faculty could use Web 2.0 systems, but then it became clear that faculty wanted the institution to provision those spaces in similar ways. Now they are dealing with the tension between the need for privacy and security and desire for openness (need both within the same project). Faculty need collaborators outside the institution. Policy issues are tricky, as are identity and access management. Carrying the artifacts forward is an issue.

Shel is talking about some of the work from Berkeley on their Draft Strategy for Campus Collaborative tools. It’s tough to get hands around the problem space, so they did a research project on that. Ultimate goal was to make collaborative activities as easy as using email or phones. But the space is changing quickly – how are we to help faculty do better with collaboration?

Original idea: a campus toolkit that would be a family of collaborative tools – a mashup of mashups. That idea got trashed by the campus – “can’t ride a tornado even if you try”. Every person uses a different set of tools.

Their motto now: “Embrace the chaos”. Can’t fight or control it, so need to tap into it. Invest in infrastructure that allows that embrace as easily and securely as possible. Toolkit will be around guidance to the community – policy, privacy, and security.

Goals: provide enhanced identity management services; make it easier to use and share data in collaborative tools; train workforce to work with and support these new collaborative technologies (privacy guidelines); establish a common framework and vocabulary for defining support for collaborative tools.

Application folks are doing analogous stuff with SOA and web services. The infrastructure folks are hell-bent to keep this from happening – what about building bullet-proof reliable services?

Students expect to be able to easily shift contexts and identities – want some stuff that’s Berkeley-branded, but not always.

In outsourcing infrastructure for Bell Labs, Shel learned that in trying to impose all of the eventual conditions on the outsourced vendors that they eliminated all of the possible advantages and cost-savings. As we have gone into perpetual Google beta-land, people’s expectations are changing.

Privacy expectations are also changing, and we have an educational role to play there.

Need to help educate IT staff not in the central organization. Example of a dean who decided to move learning apps to Facebook while the IT staff in that unit was in the process of developing new apps for Sakai.

Expect to adopt report by January.

Lots of discussion about policy issues and what needs to be retained, and what to do with access requests.

I got people talking about the concepts of scholarly social networks.

John is talking about collaborative infrastructure are Brown. They’re trying to unite applications around Mace Grouper, using course memberships. Faculty have been frustrated by the difficulty with the edge cases – where people are in fact participating in courses that the central system doesn’t know about, departmental staff that have roles in courses that the student system doesn’t know about, etc. They added a schema for each course with roles that extend the official registration. Faculty members “pretty well like it”.

Faculty are largely unaware of the services available to them, and they expect last minute setup, including provisioning. Building a faculty gateway. Allows them to see a list of services they can enable for each course. Allows faculty to see and specify who’s in a course, vagabonds, etc. Found that the UI for Mace Grouper is a little beyond many faculty.

[CSG Fall 2008] Social Learning – Geri Gay

Geri Gay is a Cornell faculty member in Communication and Information Science. “Scaffolding” seems to be a new term I’m hearing a lot today in the context of e-learning. Social learning project – tracking activities using computers and wireless devices, and having people keep journals. Out of diary studies you find words like access, convenience, … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Social Learning – Geri Gay”

Geri Gay is a Cornell faculty member in Communication and Information Science.

“Scaffolding” seems to be a new term I’m hearing a lot today in the context of e-learning.

Social learning project – tracking activities using computers and wireless devices, and having people keep journals. Out of diary studies you find words like access, convenience, freedom, no constraints, social connections, at the beginning of the courses. Freedom from constraints of space and time. At time 2, words like temptation, distraction, addiction, social connections, start showing up. 3-7 hours per day online, 60% of time on email or instant messaging. Diverting attention from classroom activities and relations.

Done some studies on divided attention – recall and retention tests with open and closed laptops. People can read NY Times if they look at headlines while they’re listening, but if they start reading the articles in depth, then they can no longer multitask. People seem happier in classes if they feel that they have access to the world outside during class.

Divergent communities – instead of building learning communities, the wireless technologies may have diverted the class from its original goals.

Women spend more time in social activities, men spend more time in sports and finance.

Dynamic feedback study – what does a computer do well, what do people do well? In computer communication fewer opportunities for interaction, trust may be reduced, bridging differences can be harder. How do we train online collaborative skills?

Working on feedback for guided reflection. Track agreement words that people are using, and reflect them back. Developed something called Groupmeter.

Working on how to improve informal interactions – working on awareness technologies, faces looking full face are available, profile means don’t interrupt.

They’ve been mapping social interactions – teams that reach out to other teams do better – more creative, more ideas, better grades.

Context-aware computing – devices that can gather information about the physical environment, and also annotate them. Example is cultural implication of new technology in museums. Built sensors, looking at density of people, density of info activity, tempo of movement (physical and virtual), etc.

Who is here? Where should I go next? What are my peers excited about? Who might be interested in this?

Looking on expertise vs. informal commentary in tagging museum objects on mobile devices.

Did recall and retention tests on school kids comparing whether they had interactive devices in museum vs. curator narration – significantly better with the interactive device.

Enabling this vision requires re-inventing learning substantively, not only the how and when of learning – communicate, deal with information I/O, work, design and build things, conduct research, deal with the environment, do commerce.

[CSG Fall 2008] Collaboration and Social Technologies – eLearning

I’m at Cornell for the Common Solutions Group Meeting. First part of workshop will deal with e-learning, afternoon with collaboration tools. Anne Moore from Va Tech is talking about categories for thinking about evaluation of success for learning technologies. She starts by talking about the 1999 National Academies report on Being Fluent in Information Technology. … Continue reading “[CSG Fall 2008] Collaboration and Social Technologies – eLearning”

I’m at Cornell for the Common Solutions Group Meeting.

First part of workshop will deal with e-learning, afternoon with collaboration tools.

Anne Moore from Va Tech is talking about categories for thinking about evaluation of success for learning technologies. She starts by talking about the 1999 National Academies report on Being Fluent in Information Technology. One point they made is when you look at critical thinking and sustained reasoning, you need to look at those skills in an environment that is technology assisted, but in a domain. The report hasn’t been largely read or applied.

Being able to assess higher level of skills is becoming more important due to the emphasis on accountability. We’ve been more focused on inputs, rather than outcomes – academic institutions are largely still not focused on being able to demonstrate learning outcomes.

Joel Smith from Carnegie Mellon talks about the Open Learning Initiative at CMU. He call this Scientifically Informed Digital Learning Interventions.

The challenge is to design and build fully web-based courses which by rigorous assessments are proven to be as good or better than traditional teaching methods. There are multiple ways of building those courses.

Why? Increased access, improved effectiveness, providing flexibility, contain costs.

The current structure of higher ed presents substantial roadblocks to the application of proven results and methodologies from the learning sciences. We depend on individual faculty to develop courses – before we had lots of info from cognitive and learning sciences teaching may have been more of an art than a science. But it’s not fair to saddle each faculty with having to know all that cognitives science. There’s an opportunity in e-learning interventions, developed by collaborations of experts, to embed the knowledge of learning sciences to make the practice more effective.

OLI Guiding Assumptions:

– Digitial learning interventions can make a significant different in learning outcomes.

– Designs grounded in learning theory and evaluation have the best chance of achieving the goal.

– A possibe, acceptabe outcome is failure or mixed failures and successes – not promoting technology for its own sake.

– Formative assessment iwll be a major feature (and cost component, like 40% of budget) of designs and improvement of courses.

– IT staff working with faculty is too limited a partnership – learning scientists, HCI experts, and assessment experts must be part of design, development, production, and iterative improvement.

OLI courses are available in http://www.cmu.edu/oli . Don’t expect an “OCW experience” this project has a different set of goals than OCW. These are full courses, designed for real learners. “Clicking around” will be unsatisfying: these interventions are designed to support a novice learner in acquiring knowledge workin on their own.

Key elements in OLI courses:

– Theory based –

Builds on prior informal knowledge. We know that building on informal knowledge helps people learn faster. Example is an economics course that has exercises that builds on student knowledge of markets based on eBay. Includes cognitive tutors that have just a few node trees on giving feedback of correct or incorrect decisions.

Provides immediate feedback in the problem solving context – midterm and final is hardly immediate or rich.

Promote autheticity, flexibility, and applicability. Real world problems, which are messy and not clear-cut, is much more effective in promoting better learning outcomes.

– Feedback loops (The killer app) – courses record student activity for robust feedback mechanisms. Can feed info back into database or to faculty – this can change the nature of education. Can also give feedback to course designers and learning scientists.

There are papers and evaluations of outcomes on the OLI web site. One example is in statistics – in the first iteration the online students did as well as the students in the traditional course which itself had been worked on for ten years with cognitive scientists. Then they taught the course in a blended mode (meeting with faculty once a week, using OLI as the textbook) in half the time. Students (randomly selected) showed significantly greater gains than the traditional course. Now considering teaching all of the sections that way.

Courses are instrumented to provide instructors with lots of feedback. Faculty can be far more effective when they know what concepts the students are getting and where they’re having problems. The vision is to have a digital dashboard for faculty and students.

“Improvement in post-secondary education will require converting teaching from a ‘solo sport’ to a community-based research activity” – Herbert simon

Deborah Heyek-Franssen, from Colorado is talking about Carts & Horses in the Collaborative, Social Space. Technology is the cart, pedagogy and content should be the horses.

The basics – understand elements of learning, articulate content goals, find pedagogical method, and choose appropriate tool.

Some elements of learning –

Working memory – limited, seven “chunks” at a time. What does this mean for pedagogy? Chunking activity and keeping working memory available for learning. Can technology help? It can, but it can also harm it – e.g. slides with gratuitous images and animations. Cognitive load of looking at images or simulations is lower than reading about it.

Engagement – students get engaged in challenging, complex, multidisciplinary tasks involving sustained amounts of time. What does it mean for pedagogy? designing in and out of class activities that engage, including lecture and readings. Collaborative and social tools can help engage students.

Motivation – what motivates students? building motivation into course – rewards for desired activities.

Reflection – explaining and then critically evaluating own and others explanations. Wikis and blogs can help reflection.

Building on past knowledge – students now have opportunity to build global knowledge – e.g. wikipedia.

Deb notes that simulations can be addictive, and Greg comments that addiction doesn’t equate with learning. While that’s right, it seems to me that learning is at least more likely to occur if you’re highly engaged.

Shel notes that in research universities, even when faculty really want to teach, they’re mostly consumed with their research and even when we have tools and staff resources to help them, they’re not particularly interested in spending the time to work on really improving course methodologies. Joel notes that it works much better to engage with whole departments at curricular levels rather than individual faculty.

Cliff notes that collecting lots of real-time data on student activities has a creepy element about it and wonders about what the policy and privacy issues are. Joel says that there’s at CMU there’s an opt-in informed consent form they can assent to. And feedback is not granular at the level of individual students.

Greg says that the problem with assessment is whether or not people will make any changes based on the assessment, and if we don’t have institutions that make changes based on data then it may not be worth spending money on assessment.

Shel says they did a survey of large courses and 80% of students were using Facebook, but only 20% were using Sakai. So when they put the courseware into Facebook, the students didn’t use it there either.