dScribing: Initial
Reflections on
Student-Centric
OCW
Publishing
Garin Fons
Timothy Vollmer
Pieter Kleymeer
David Hutchful
University of Michigan
http://flickr.com/photos/maeng/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en-us

current landscape
dScribe model
incentives
student experience
future 2

Current Models
Faculty & Staff-Centric Approach
• Constraints
• Cost per course
• Quantity and refresh rate
• Faculty participation
3

Principles
• “participatory pedagogy”
• active student engagement
• public service commitment
• At Michigan: “creating a culture of
learning”

current landscape
dScribe model
incentives
student experience
future

dScribe Model
• “digital Scribes”
• University of Toronto inspiration
• distributed model
• students actually in the course
• students as co-creators of content
• collect and validate integrity of
material

dScribe-Centric Publishing Cycle
Export course
Create course
Give dScribe
materials for
management
access to site
OCW
site
Roles
Identify and
Instructor document IP
Publish to
issues for
OCW Site
Instructor / dScribe review
dScribe
Clear IP
Review IP
issues

current landscape
dScribe model
incentives
student experience
future

Student Incentives
• master course content
• learn about IP
• establish connection with faculty
• showcase one’s own coursework
• serve the public

Faculty Incentives
• students within class know best!
• distribute publishing workload
• support reciprocal learning

Administration Incentives
• potential to reduce overall
publishing costs
• demonstrate commitment to
principles
• enrich teacher/student
relationships
• support a collaborative learning
network within and between
schools

current landscape
dScribe model
incentives
student experience
future

dScribing at Michigan

What we thought would happen:
• easy material transfer with our current tool
• straightforward IP
• excited faculty
• help supplement studying
• uncertain about faculty interaction
• questions in managing variance in courses
• unclear about student time commitments

What did happen:
• faculty gave the green light
• IP issues difficult to navigate
• workflow was ahead of the tool
• time & legal constraints to enriching student work

dScribe reflections:
Create set of best practices for workflow
• standardization
• support and openness class and school
differences
• IP tutorial and FAQ
• tool is “user-friendly”
• keep the tool ahead of the workflow
• guidance by dScribe mentors

current landscape
dScribe model
incentives
student experience
future

How to get there
• scaling-up
• appropriate incentive structures
• accounting for departmental differences
• leveraging student knowledge
• one model among many