The Madison DID
©
Integrating an Image Library into an
Internet-based Teaching Tool for Art,
Architecture and Beyond
© Copyright Sharon P. Pitt, Christina B. Updike. This work is the intellectual property of
the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial,
educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced
materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To
disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
This Presentation
 will be available at http://cit.jmu.edu under
the REPORTS link by 11/1/2001
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
James Madison University






Current enrollment approximately 15,000
Comprehensive liberal arts
Mean SAT about 1170
70% Virginia students
90% freshman retention rate
80% six-year graduation rate
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
©
What is the Madison DID ?
The Madison Digital Image Database© is an online
image database and multimedia instructional
system designed to create and show Internetbased lectures using digitized images.
The system permits instructors to generate,
remotely, “slide shows”, which can be annotated,
placed online for student study, or archived for
testing or future use.
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
What’s so exciting about it?
Though many image databases provide flexible
faculty and student access to online images, those
systems generally do not provide a tool via which
faculty can teach and students can learn. The
©
Madison DID brings the digital image and data
library into the teaching and learning process, in
and outside the classroom.
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
©
MDID Background
Project began in early 1997
Original system presented at EDUCAUSE 1999
Major redesign in 2000
Product available for free on October 10, 2001
Downloaded by over 40 colleges and universities
across the U.S.
 Working to create less restrictive license
 Consideration of open source





EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Why Digitize Images?
 General
 Preservation
 Increased access to images and associated data
 Online accessibility
 JMU
 Respond to increased student enrollment and course
sections in new General Education program
 Visual Resources Library projected its inability to meet
demands of added course sections
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
©
MDID Background
 Project selection
process
 System components
and demonstration
 Project design
 Expanding image and
data content
 Dealing with copyright
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Instructional impact
Assessment results
Institutional impact
Organizational impact
Licensing and
commercialization?
 Lessons learned
 Future





Project Selection: Need
 Increased student enrollment and increased course
sections resulting from new General Education program
 From 12 to 24 sections of survey of art courses
 Additional 8 general art sections
 Visual Resources Library projected its inability to meet
demands




No staff to label, file or assist faculty for additional sections
Not enough slides
Slides degrading in quality
No additional storage space
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Project Selection: Grant Program
 Competitive in-university grants
program – mGrants
 This project was awarded in the first year
of the program, 1998
 Cultivate instructional excellence through
experimentation with new ideas, teaching
methods and technologies
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Project Selection: Process
 Advisory Council, made up of teaching faculty,
representing all colleges of the university and the
Office of Assessment and Research Studies
 Deans appoint faculty representatives
 Internal Review of CIT
 Criteria Sheets and proposals reviewed by
council members via individual quantitative, then
group qualitative analysis
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Project Selection: Criteria
 Need – Tremendous impact
on School of Art and Art
History by General Education
program
 Purpose – Create an
image library and image
viewing system
 Impact – 20 faculty, 2000
students per year
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
 Project Plan and
Budget – Unrealistic
 Evaluation – CIT, Office of
Assessment and Research
 Continued Use – Once
underlying system developed,
images from across the
university could be searched
and/or displayed in virtually any
discipline
System Components
 Images and Associated Data
 Faculty owned slide collections
 Visual Resources Library collections
 Commercial image libraries (AMICO, Davis Art)





Slideshow Builder©
Slideshow Viewer©
©
ImageViewer
Catalog Editor©
Administrative Tools
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Demonstration: The ImageViewer
 Client-based, packaged application used in
technology classrooms to display and
teach with images in the classroom
 High-bandwidth Access Only (usually on
campus)
 Faculty Only
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Demo: The Slideshow Viewer
©
 Online, password protected lecture review
system
 Student Interface
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Demo: The Slideshow Builder
©
 Online, password protected image
search and selection system and lecture
creation system, allowing faculty to
develop and manage lectures anytime,
anyplace
 Faculty Interface
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Demo: The Catalog Editor
©
 Maintaining the veracity of search data
online
 Visual Resources Curator/Librarian Interface
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Documentation: Help
 Available within online system
 Written in conjunction with Student Publications
Group at JMU
 Student receives an 2001 JMU writing contest
award for Madison DID documentation, for TSC
409, an independent study in Technical and
Scientific Communication
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
©
MDID Administrative Tools
 Online, password protected lecture
administrative maintenance system
 Managing Accounts
 Sending email to all users
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Design and Production Tasks
Selecting images
Acquiring permission
Cataloging system
Produce online database
Produce client-based,
multimedia teaching
system
 Scan Images





EDUCAUSE, October 2001
 Remount and label slides
for VRC
 Edit images – content
 Edit images – database
 Train faculty
 Evaluate/Assess
 Ongoing maintenance
costs
Design Tasks - Future
 Continue to assess faculty,
student, administrative,
and instructional needs
 Determine and address
student access and
learning needs
 Purchase & integrate
commercial libraries (in
addition to AMICO)
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
 Expand an already viable
cataloging and search
system
 Easier to use tools to
integrate content
 Developing better
administrative tools
Instructional Impact
 Image preservation, integrity, accuracy
 Faculty can always use the most accurate,
highest resolution images (the “best” image)
 Reduced administrative overhead in dealing with
physical slides
 Access is anytime, anyplace for faculty lecture
development and student study and review
 Enhances time management in and
out of classroom (no more spelling)
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Instructional Impact








Image comparison, with all features of system
Details of images are always available
Data can be displayed with the image anytime
Annotations connect images and lecture notes
Dynamic content – movement of static content
Works can be viewed over time
Interdisciplinary exchange is encouraged
Art can be learned at a distance
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Assessment issues from 1999
 Accuracy of information
 Quality images--less download time vs. higher
resolution
 Ability to include instructor analysis/annotation
 Better student navigation and display interface
 Immediate archiving
 Ability to print online slide shows/lectures
 Give us MORE!
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Redesign in 2000
 Based on 1998/99 assessment results, the MDID was
redesigned. Additions included:
Review and correction of image data.
Annotation features to provide customized instructor comments
The ability to “archive” a lecture
The ability to print a lecture
The AMICO digital image library was added, expanding content
base and usefulness of system by 65,000 images
 Authentication via LDAP instead of email
 Side-by-side image display





EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Assessment – Spring 2001 Results
 402 valid cases
 All Survey of World Art Courses
 Crosses eight faculty members
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Student Technology Demographics (2001)
Question
Response
Do you own a computer?
95.3%
4.7%
Yes
No
Where do you usually access a computer?
90.5%
3.8%
2.3%
2.3%
.5%
Home
Campus Lab
Roommate
Library
Friend
Can you access the Internet from the
computer you use most often?
98.2%
1.8%
Yes
No
How often does your instructor use the
ImageViewer© to show digital images?
85.2%
4.5%
5.8%
4.0%
Every class
Don’t Recall
1-2 month
Weekly
When digital images are projected in your class using the
ImageViewer, how useful do you find the following features?
60
50
40
Very
Useful
Occassionally
Rarely
Don't Recall
30
20
10
0
Split Screen
64.1%
Zoom
72.8%
Slide Info
Annotations
80.5%
49.1%
How useful do you find use of the MDID for…..?
90
80
70
60
Very
Often
Occassionally
Rarely
N/A
50
40
30
20
10
0
Exam
Review
94%
Grade (F)
Grade (S)
Interest in
Art
79.9%
80.7%
49.3%
Question
Response
On average, how often did you view
your instructor’s Slideshows outside
of class?
48.5%
31.8%
10.9%
7.7%
1-2/month
1/week
several /week
rarely
What is your primary reason for
viewing the Slideshows outside of
class?
87.3%
10.0%
Exam review
Understand the material
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the online images of the
SlideShows you accessed from
outside of class?
61.6%
31.4%
4.7%
1.0%
1.0%
Good
Excellent
Poor
Very Poor
N/A
Overall, how would you rate the
information provided for each image
in the SlideShows you accessed
from outside of class?
68.6%
20.4%
7.7%
1.7%
1.2%
Good
Excellent
Poor
Very Poor
N/A
Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments
 “The DID was instrumental in helping me
succeed on the mid-term. Without it, I would
have felt completely lost, and wouldn’t have done
nearly as well”
 “The visual quality of the digital slides was 100%
better than that of the 35mm slides. Also, the
ability to zoom in and out allowed for a closer
examination of the work and details. This is a
great resource.”
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments
 “I like the DID. If I didn’t have access to it I
would fail every test. The print outs are nice
because I can bring them to class and take notes
on it.”
 “I’m not sure how helpful the annotations are. I
definitely get more by going to class.”
 “The print views are poor quality and hard to
see.”
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Assessment – Spring 2001 Comments
 “Biggest benefits of DID are the enhancements of class
discussion about artwork, and studying for exams.”
 “The DID is great because it enables me to have course
material at the click of a button. I don’t have to go track
down pictures of paintings and sculptures that we study
in class because they are online.”
 “I love DID but it would be very handy if a student could
use an option to type their notes into a personalized
version.”
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Addressing Copyright
 Faculty access presentations in unique password
environment
 Students access low resolution presentations in a unique
password environment
 Followed Educational Multimedia Fair Use Guidelines
(developed at CONFU) as project development criteria
 Incorporated individual faculty slide collections, with
permission, into the database
 Purchased commercially available digital image libraries
and incorporated into the system
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Addressing Copyright
 Maintain a license to AMICO
(http://www.amico.org)
 Incorporate AMICO images, a 75,000 art image
library into system
 Working to do the same with Davis Art Slides
and other commercial companies
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Technology Transfer
 Disclosure to Intellectual Property Committee
 Establishment of institutional ownership of
product
 Formal go ahead to market product (5/2000)
 Sale of Madison DID as a product
 Whoa!
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Technology Transfer
 Is this a contract or a sale?
 How should funds from the sale be handled?
 Is the university inappropriately using state resources to
create a competitive, commercial product?
 What is the institution’s technology transfer policy?
 Establishment of IP Task Force to investigate and
establish administration of IP at JMU
 Tentative plan to acquire a commercial partner to
commercialize MDID©
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Technology Transfer
 How should JMU seek a partner to
commercialize a product?
 Through an RFP process?
 Establish a foundation?
 Hire a consultant to market all products for the
institution?
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Technology Transfer
 How is the Madison DID© shared?
 RFP process tried and failed
 Decision to make available for free, not open
source
 As of October 10, free (with no support), to
higher education at http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
MDID Registered Users include:








Mellon Foundation
Luna Imaging, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
Saskia, Inc.
Yale University
Institute of Fine Arts
John Hopkins University
Gemological Institute of
America
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
 Indiana University
 University of North
Carolina
 University of Michigan
 University of Pittsburgh
 Columbia University
 Ohio University
 University of California at
Berkeley
Technology Transfer
 Legal Issues







Creation of license for commercial product
Permission from VA AG to hire a lawyer
Creation of license for free software
Acquisition of trademarks
Acquisition of copyrights
Less restrictive licensing
Possible creation of license for open source for online
components of MDID©
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Institutional Impact
 Need a “decision algorithm” to further all
innovative software development at JMU – IP
Task Force
 Change in University Intellectual Property Policy
 Serious look at infrastructure for innovation
 Seek additional funds (grant, foundation,
corporate gifts, consortiums) to continue
development of MDID©
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Future Design Plans
 Develop an easy-to-use system for faculty or
librarian to add images and data to the system
 Move to SQL (Microsoft Server) database
 Consideration of open source licensing—meet
the needs of 40+ institutions in U.S. more
effectively
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Lessons Learned
 There is a technology learning curve for faculty
 There is a content learning curve for technology
developers
 Teaching and learning infrastructure is critical
 Instructional design is an increasingly
collaborative process, not only with faculty, which
is inherent, but with technology organizations of
the institution
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Keys to Success
 Communication—Focus groups, meetings
 Evaluation and assessment—keeps system
relevant
 Integration of content from large, commercial
image library
 Collaboration with classroom audio visual
services and computing support to ensure
appropriate infrastructure for system
 Accuracy of images and data
EDUCAUSE, October 2001
Resources
 MDID Information: http://cit.jmu.edu/mdidinfo
 AMICO: http://www.amico.org
 Conference on Fair Use:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/
 Sharon P. Pitt: Director, Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning; [email protected]
 Christina B. Updike: Visual Resources Specialist, School
of Art and Art History; [email protected]
EDUCAUSE, October 2001










Craig Baugher: Scanning, Image Editing, Graphic Design
Jeff Butler: Image Editing, Video Production
Derek Carbonneau: Image Viewer, Project Management
Sarah Cheverton: Training, Help Documentation
Miriam Guthrie: GUI, Project Management, Assessment, Training
Kevin Hegg: Slide Show Builder, ImageViewer, Server
Administration, Maintenance
Julia Harbeck: Assessment
Andreas Knab: Slide Show Builder, Madison DID Installer, Server
Administration
Sharon Pitt: Project Management, Diplomacy, Administrative
Marketing
Christina Updike: Search Criteria Development, Image Editing, SME
EDUCAUSE, October 2001