PBL Symposium (Part 6): Technology implementation at Republic Polytechnic

[From Part 5]

Day-3, 12 June 2009.

Mr. Yow Hon Kong, Republic Polytechnic's (RP) Deputy Director, Office of Information Services. He shared about their IT implementation rationale.

RP started with a stretch goal of having a campus that is entirely paperless: lessons, lecture notes, official documents etc.

Says their initial challenge was to manage administrative overheads with the same operational budget for IT (as other polytechnics); not so much for Problem-based Learning per se.

The technology RP uses isn't new. Says it is "less of a technology implementation and more of a cultural implementation".


RP staff are issued individual laptops. They can even synch their mobile phones with a virtual phone app (VOIP) on their laptops. Phone calls can be made from their laptops over the campus-wide WIFI.


RP uses email accounts as electronic filing cabinets. Each departmental email account is their official filing cabinet.

As far as I understand, they do not employ any taxonomy schemes nor are staff required to index or tag their documents. RP's efiling system is more of a "info dump" and used for unstructured data. No manual indexing.

Their IT team created a email/ e-file search engine that automatically index files/ mails. I asked if they performed document-housekeeping and answer was no.


All RP classrooms have wireless projectors (more efficient when you consider each PBL lesson involves multiple group presentations; no need to swap physical cables). They encourage use of MSN and Skype as communication platforms within campus.

RP has three separate data centres. Two are on site (but on different location within the campus) and one is offsite from campus.

On sustaining RP's IT culture: Any staff who joins RP (including temporary facilitators) are given a three-hour hands-on IT training on the very first day. Then there are weekly IT workshops (for staff and students. The campus has an onsite helpdesk and a network and application support team.

Each classroom and various strategic locations have web-cams installed. The cams can be accessed via their Intranet.



RP uses MS Access to enable staff to generate their reports on demand. They customise a MS Access program that allows users to link to separate divisional databases (to facilitate greater inter-divisional sharing of data). They conduct regular training sessions for their users to be able to generate MS Access queries and be able to generate reports on demand.




Because of the high importance for tests and exams, for this part RP opted for client-based applications rather than web-based. Client software (developed in-house) are installed on all student and staff laptops. Students would access and complete their tests via the client software.

During tests periods, access to the Internet is blocked (they don't want students to chat with their friends for answers, it seems).

Here's a demonstration of a system they call LEO, for "Learning Environment Online". The system is used by staff and students for time-tabling, class assignments, to access their discussion forums, quizzes, grading and surveys (more about LEO, here).


Academic staff are able to access students' Reflective Journal entries, and also assign grades.



I asked Mr. Yow if they faced situations where there were unauthorised account access/ identity theft among students.

Mr. Yow explained all accounts were required to have their passwords changed every two weeks. Also, students are able to report any issues to the IT support staff immediately. He said those measures helped to reduce the problems.

I inferred that there would be cases of unauthorised access and account break-ins (I suspect due to carelessness by users, i.e. leaving their passwords in plain sight). Inevitable, I suppose.

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 7]

Google blog: The Power of Measurement series

From the Official Google blog:

This is the first post in a series on The Power of Measurement. In this economic climate, these posts are designed to cover ways to make your website as successful as possible. Over the course of the next few weeks, our in-house Analytics guru, Avinash Kaushik, and others will demystify the world of website analytics and offer tips for getting the most out of your metrics.

Link

Avinash's first post of the series talks about the Bounce Rate feature in Google Analytics. And how to improve it (btw, here's a contrasting view about how a high Bounce Rate might be good as well).

I found Avinash's tutorial detailed without being overwhelming. Helpful screenshots too. Looking forward to reading more.

There are other informative posts from Google's Official Blog, contributed by various Google employees.

Here are some of my personal favourites:

Like this one on the eye-tracking data Google collected.

This post talks about the Google search findings from the 2008 US Presidential campaign. It seems that 12% of inauguration-related queries came from outside the United States.

Did you know that "one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2"? This post shares more.

As a librarian, it helps to stayed updated on Google's search features. Like this enhancement to Google's Image Search by allowing searches to search specifically for clip art and line drawings (in addition to Faces, News content, Photo content).

I found this post REALLY detailed, and insightful of course, about how Google "trains their search language system".

If you ever have to write a paper on how a search engine can help in tackling global pandemics, you might be interested in this post on how Google helps track flu trends.

BTW, forget about leaving a comment in the official Google blog. 'Cos they have turned off that feature (I can understand why though).

Encyclopaedia Britannica goes "Wiki", but not quite

Practically every blog post I've read says Britannica (yes, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, i.e. EB) is going "wiki".

Although in Britannica's blog post dated 3 June 2008 (yeah, they have a blog too!) they have not used that term anywhere.

My reading of their post is that Britannica Online will remain as it is -- an online website. Embedded with "Web 2.0" tool, perhaps.

But not a "wiki" per se, IF we take the term to be closely associated with Wikipedia's publication model.

Their preferred terms are "participation" and "collaboration".

Quotes from their post (emphasis mine):

Encyclopaedia Britannica is about to launch a new initiative that we’re very enthusiastic about. The main thrust of this initiative is to promote greater participation by both our expert contributors and readers.

Both groups will be invited to play a larger role in expanding, improving, and maintaining the information we publish on the Web under the Encyclopaedia Britannica name as well as in sharing content they create with other Britannica visitors.

A complete redesign, editing tools, and incentive programs will give expert contributors and users the means to take part in the further improvement of Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the creation and publication of their own work.

Notice how EB has reinforced their position that credit is given to contributors and participants, and that it will be the user's "own work".

Definitely in the spirit of Web 2.0, where user participation is welcome and practically a given.

My question at this point: Wikipedia doesn't charge a fee for its use, whereas EB has a pricing model. So how would they handle this without being seen as being exploitative?

EB probably anticipates this point and mentions about incentives, but stops short of specifying what it will be, other than implying the non-financial aspects of collaborative work:

"... we will provide our contributors with a reward system ... that will enable them to promote themselves, their work, and their services; allow them to showcase and publish their various works-in-progress in front of the Britannica audience; and help them find and interact with colleagues around the world."

Here's more:

"Readers and users will also be invited into an online community where they can work and publish at Britannica’s site under their own names.

Interested users will be able to prepare articles, essays, and multimedia presentations on subjects in which they’re interested. Britannica will help them with research and publishing tools and by allowing them to easily use text and non-text material from Encyclopaedia Britannica in their work.

We will publish the final products on our site for the benefit of all readers, with all due attribution and credit to the people who created them. The authors will have the option of collaborating with others on their work, but each author will retain control of his or her own work."

Seems to me EB is deliberately shifting the focus away from saying they will pay contributors, but appealing to other factors like establishing contributors as recognised experts, and access to EB's resources.

It seems that not everyone will get to be contributors to EB. Ultimately, EB will decide who gets to contribute, or at least those who eventually gets published under the EB branding:

"As part of our longstanding tradition, engaging a prominent community of scholars will continue to be a key requirement. With this new site and initiatives we will be able to recruit new members beyond our current contributor base, through recommendations from existing contributors, applications from expert communities, and by inviting select members of our user community."

If you follow their post, you'll get to the part where they mention the distinguishing factors from "other projects of online collaboration":

(1) the active involvement of the expert contributors with whom we already have relationships
(2) the fact that all contributions to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s core content will continue to be checked and vetted by our expert editorial staff before they’re published.

So, it's clear to me the new Britannica website will not be another Wikipedia.

It confirms what I've mentioned at the start of this post: Britannica Online essentially remains as an online resource rather than a collaborative platform per se.

They intend to deploy "Web 2.0" tools, which may involve "wiki" features. But they won't adopt Wikipedia's publication model.

This much is also clarified at this comment, where EB clarifies:

"Though a number of people see this as an effort to compete with Wikipedia, in many ways it’s the opposite of the wiki model in that everyone gets personal credit for his or her own contributions, and you control the future of the work you publish on the site."

My final thoughts:
I look forward to EB's new site. But I don't see it as being radically different from what it's doing.

Of course, EB didn't claim that they will be radically different. They emphasise on how there will be greater participation and collaboration (i.e. from their current model).

I'm not doubting their intents. From a business point of view, I'd say "about time"!

As a student or amateur researcher, I'd welcome it too (retaining exclusivity into the "EB club" is a form of incentive).

But all that being said, I'm not sure is how EB intends to implement the "participation" and "collaboration" part. I went to their Beta site and first impression was that it's still very "EB online" and not "Web 2.0".


If "participation" and "collaboration" was the emphasis, then EB needs to make that apparent on the front page.

I'd put a big "Join as a EB contributor" link. And explain more how it works.

I didn't go beyond the main page, so I can only speculate that there are essentially two main "spaces" -- (1) the actual EB website,and (2) the collaborative space for researchers and users to interact. Whatever comes out of Space #2 is filtered back to #1 by the EB staff.

The other thing I'd do is to send out invites to people -- students, academics, bloggers, professionals, teachers, librarians! -- who might want to take part in the Beta. These are your potential users, if not contributors.

EB is a business, and needs a viable business model. So any remarks about it not going the "Wikiepdia Way" is unfair and unrealistic.

But inevitably, EB does have to constantly deal with the fact that it's a reference resource, and there are plenty of alternatives on the Internet whose quality is improving all the time (we librarians should know!)

So I think EB's new site holds some promise.

But seems to me it's not an issue about it's adoption of "Web 2.0" tools, but how well it can integrate the "Web 2.0 Culture" into its business model.

TeacherTube.com

First there was YouTube (for videos). Then Slideshare (popularly known as the YouTube for Powerpoint).

And now, introducing TeacherTube!

[Hat-tip to Dembe Wellman for this]

Will we see LibraryTube next? You know, instructional videos on how to make the most of libraries, community-contributed videos on reading and learning... : )

Online Sound Repositories - Freesound Project & MusicAustralia

Discovered these 2 online resources recently:

1) The Freesound Project - http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/index.php (via Creative Commons Blog)
Here's what the project is about, and individuals and institutions can help.

You can browse by Tags or do a search (I tried to search for "forest" and "rain"). The search capabilities (which I supposed is linked to the way the items are tagged) can be improved, 'cos "rain" returned results like "train passing by". Then I tried "water" and I got sounds of glass or something. I like the Search Filter, where you can add or remove certain words from the results, but it may not retrieve what I want.

Anyway, I'm not complaining. It seems like a great resource to me. Example, inserting the sounds of passing cars (try searching for "street") in your animation clip, or downloading to your laptop for playback at your poetry reading session.


2) MusicAustralia - http://www.musicaustralia.org/
"An online information resource for Australian music... provides information on almost 140,000 Australian musical resources covering all formats, styles and genres,
both heritage and contemporary. More than 10, 000 digital resources are available, including scores, audio, pictures and theses. MusicAustralia was developed by the National Library of Australia in collaboration with the National Film and Sound Archive and with contribuitons from all state libraries, the Australian Music Centre, the Australian National University, University of Melbourne and the Australian War Memorial."

Seems very impressive. You can follow a theme, or do a search. I like how they provide (where available) the music score and the sound clip as well. I tried a search for "War" limited to "online only" and "sound" and there were 9 results, dating between 1915 to 1944.


[Tag: music australia, freesound project]