20 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2022
    1. CIOs can ask what their institution is trying to achieve. What are the challenges? Where are the pain points? CIOs should hunt for the problems on campus and try to explore where AI can play a part in helping to solve them.

      Much of the pain is the result of downsizing and I think that's driving the interest in AI unfortunately. The fantasy that we will be able to replace human beings with AI is alive and well in higher ed and CIOs will need to navigate that before millions of dollars are wasted. When Admissions asks you, "Everyone else has a chatbot. When are we getting one?" you will need to be ready with an intelligent, strategy-based response. "Everyone's doing it," should not enter into it - but we have a pretty dismal track record in this regard. .

    2. AI can help bolster the admissions office by finding prospective students who might be interested in applying and matriculating

      It seems like we are still confusing analytics with AI.

    1. it knows I am in here working

      If it knows you are working John, why is it distracting you by bumping into your door? Have you been ignoring it?

    2. Trust me, when the value proposition for AI is the liberation of faculty from the drudgery of transactional interactions with students ("When is the test?" "Where is the lab?" "When is the paper due?"), faculty will stand in line to sign up. Until then, higher education will continue to be in an adolescent phase in the use of AI.

      This also depends on the the usability of AI applications and their integration with tools instructors use every day (e.g., LMS).

  2. May 2022
    1. Our hope is that we will continue to improve the field of faculty development collaboratively, incorporating both what we have learned over the past two years and also what we learn from each other

      So how do we do that? How are we going to collaborate differently than we have for the past 30 years, methods that clearly failed to prepare us for the pandemic? What has EDUCUASE learned about how they need change to support these new forms of collaboration moving forward? Is it through these centralized efforts that new forms of collaboration will emerge or will/should it be more grassroots? We have to move beyond hopes and dreams and actually do it. Otherwise we really are back to normal.

    2. We have proven that we can come together not only to share resources with each other but also on national and international levels by sharing our work on highly visible platforms, such as those provided by EDUCAUSE

      Actually, this was not my experience at all. I saw an incredible amount of duplication of effort across schools and a tendency toward a hyperlocal "take care of our own" response. Organizations like EDUCAUSE were relatively silent, especially during the early months of the pandemic. Once the "deer in the headlights" reaction subsided after maybe six months in, then I saw more collaboration. I was actually a bit surprised by the initial absence of leadership from institutions and organizations that were positioned to lead. I think it just speaks to our overall lack of preparedness and the human response to trauma.

  3. Dec 2021
    1. A domain name or URL

      Interesting! I had not considered whether a domain name could subject to copyright protection - and the answer is, "no."

    2. In contrast, a recipe that creatively explains or depicts how or why to perform a particular activity may be copyrightable.

      I wonder if this is why those insufferable recipe blogs are all set up they way they are? Is it to allow for enough original authorship to be copyrightable?

    3. regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied.

      I understand that ideas are not copyrightable, but this phrase confuses me. If I explain my idea by drawing a picture or writing it down on a napkin, isn't that expression of the idea copyrightable in that form?

    4. Some works, however, contain elements that either lack the required creativ-ity or are placed outside the bounds of copyright by the law.

      Two reasons why a work is not subject to copyright protection.

    1. Why isn’t our goal to have all OERs eventually exist in the public domain? If we really care about ease of reuse, if we really respect creators of derivative works, and if we really want to see the open education movement succeed, we should have the public domain as our final goal.

      The fact that this hasn't happened yet and there's no indication that it's going to happen any time soon must mean there are some pretty compelling forces at work. What are they?

    2. how can a community so focused on freedom approve of any restrictions? Specifically, when expressing concern about restrictions making it difficult to reuse works, how can this community approve of the copyleft or share-alike concept?

      The fundamental question is a good one, but I am not sure that "approve" captures CC's current position toward the SA restriction. The broader point that "free" should equal public domain is well-taken and thought-provoking.

    1. Briefly, in general terms, describe all new copyrightable authorship covered by the copyright claim for which registration is sought.

      Although most instructors will not secure copyright registration of an adaptation or collection, it's probably a good practice to note, both during and following the creative process, what "new copyrightable authorship" is intended.

    2. Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work.

      This is one of the best arguments for assigning Creative Commons licenses to instructional materials that omit the NoDerivatives restriction, allowing others to create adaptations without permission. This is also a cautionary note for instructors who are adapting course materials using preexisting. All Rights Reserved work without permission.

    3. it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work

      In the case of textbook editions, I assume this means that the copyright on the first edition cannot be extended by creating a second edition.

    4. Compilations of data or compilations of preexisting works (also known as “col-lective works”) may also be copyrightable if the materials are selected, coordi-nated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a new work.

      The examples are helpful. The list of required readings for a course could be considered a compilation or collection if the instructor could demonstrate originality in the selection and ordering of those readings.

    5. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.

      The use of the phrase "new original copyrightable authorship" to distinguish an adaptation from preexisting work is suitably vague. See William Fisher's lecture on the concept of originality for more information about what constitutes, "originality."

  4. Apr 2021
    1. Among the findings, 46 percent of the teachers eliminated some assessments and assignments. Just 32 percent lowered their expectation of the quality of work

      I don't think this is a good indicator of empathy. You could make the argument that instructors who worked their tails off to maintain academic continuity cared more about their students than those who reduced their students' workload. The difficulty transitioning to online course delivery was on us, not our students. We were unprepared and I think that frustrated them.

    2. A troublingly common lament of students and son alike was that many faculty members seemed indifferent to the challenges facing their students.

      To what extent was this higher than normal? Do we have good data on student perceptions of faculty indifference?

  5. Nov 2019
    1. “She said virtual reality is an inherently violent medium,” Berry says. “You’re sticking a device on your face, and that device is shoving input into your eyes and ears so you can only see and hear something that someone else has designed. That’s someone you don’t know, you don’t have direct access to, and you don’t know what they did or why they did it. You’re basically submitting yourself to someone else’s vision of reality.”

      I agree that the sensory experience is perhaps more immediate and immersive than reading a book or watching a movie, but I am not sure there are any important qualitative differences between this form of exposure to someone else's reality and others. I also don't see the act of putting on a headset as inherently violent. One can simply take the headset off just like closing your eyes or looking away when watching a movie. I think I have less freedom in a movie theater than I do when wearing a VR headset.