downloadable PDF
2nd Report from LSU to IMLS on the SAEC Project
| To: |
Susan L. Malbin
Senior Program Officer
Office of Library Services & Library Services
Institute for Museum and Library Services
1100 Penn. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20506 |
| From: |
Elizabeth H. Dow, P.I. |
| Institution: |
LSU |
| Grant #: |
146-05-5000 |
| Dates: |
April 2003-September 2003 |
Calendar Overview:
| April - Aug. 2003 |
Project Set-up: |
Establish the evaluation criteria, Refine the technology, Complete course conversion and enhancement, Create evaluation instruments and process. |
| Sept. - Dec. 2003 |
Alpha: |
Run classes (1st semester), Evaluate. |
Activities Initiated and Completed:
The Southeast Archives Education Collaborative continued its development during its second six months of existence and completed the following activities:
Management
We hired Rebecca Smith as a graduate assistant to assist Brad Brazzeal and take over his duties at his graduation in December.
We held monthly electronic meetings (April - September) of the Advisory Board.
We reviewed the budget shift caused by the loss of GCSU from the Collaborative, revised the budget, submitted it to IMLS, which approved the changes. LSU and the partner schools are now re-writing the various subcontracts.
Course Delivery
We completed the harmonization of each partners’ “Archives” 101 course.
We completed the conversion of courses (Electronic Description of Archival Materials and Government Information Services) previously presented “on the ground” to an online environment.
Kentucky became the designated “bridge” site for the I2 connection, with LSU as the backup. We succeeded, through use of a “test class,” in establishing effective methods of communication between class sites. These methods include use of ProComm’s WebOffice Meeting (which SC hosts) to clarify the computer signal as it travels across the I2 lines, an always-on conference call to ensure continuous audio if a site has technical problems and drops out of the video conference, taping of classes in case of serious “drop off,” time (most sites drop off for no more than a minute or two; Auburn once dropped out for about a half hour, and we simply sent a tape of the session), and tweaking of compressed video details, i.e. microphone and camera placement.
Evaluation
We developed a list of measurable outcomes for the project as a whole, and for the two courses currently on the air. We have coordinated outcomes to assure that information will flow from course-level evaluation to project-level evaluation.
Dissemination
We delivered a panel presentation at the SAA conference in August 2003.
We loaded a Website at http://slis.lsu.edu/saec/saec.html.
Activities Initiated and Still Ongoing:
In the past six months, we have continued some activities and have initiated others; we have not yet completed them:
Management
We continue to routinely update the Website to reflect project development.
We have begun to plan for the January meeting at which the major agenda items will center around planning to make this collaboration a permanent opportunity for our students.
Course Delivery
Classes began in August and will be complete in December. We are giving a class from LSU and one from SC, both with enrollment at all sites.
Evaluation
We continue to develop our evaluation instruments. We will conduct student evaluations at the conclusion of this semester’s courses and integrate student responses into project-level evaluation.
Dissemination
We have been accepted to present at the National Council for Public History meeting for March 31-April 4, 2004.
We have submitted a proposal to the SAA-AERT conference in Boston, August 2004.
The Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology has asked that we produce a special issue on the Collaborative. Publication is scheduled for 2006.
Problems:
So far this experiment has been remarkably trouble free. We have had minor technical problems, but the technical crews have shown great diligence in fixing them when they arise and reducing their number overall.
Comments:
The students expressed a great deal of trepidation about the technology on the first night of classes, but after the first class relaxed. Though we have done no formal polling yet, the most common response they express informally has been gratitude for the opportunity to have access to classes they do not have on their home campus.
Submitted by:
Elizabeth H. Dow
5/02/03 |