JigsawMashupISD

Running Head: JIGSAW/MASHUP ID  Jigsaw / Mashup Instructional Design Leeann R. Parker Sharon K. Walsh June 16, 2011 The Florida State University College of Education Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems EME 5405 Media, Text and Technology Dr. Vanessa Dennen

**Introduction** With the collaborative nature of Web 2.0, education has joined other disciplines in the developing culture of worldwide sharing. Educators and instructional designers are discovering that it isn’t always necessary to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when developing learning materials; someone, somewhere may have already created a learning object suited, at least in part, to the needs of others. How do we draw upon the resources and knowledge of instructors and other subject matter experts around us? The answer lies in the concept of jigsaw or mashup instructional design. **Background Information** The concept of the mashup originates with music and digital media. In a mashup, portions of existing works are combined to create a new derivative work (Wikipedia 2011), such as a song, video, or other media production. In terms of instructional design, a mashup or jigsaw consists of assembling learning experiences from existing instructional materials. The rise of open learning initiatives supports the use of mashup design, to find and reuse the best resources to promote the most effective learning experiences. “Educational value is derived through multiple modes and diverse tools” (Batson, Paharia, and Kumar 2008, p. 97); mashup instructional design supports educational value by providing the tools and strategy to create diverse, engaging learning opportunities through reusing and revising materials shared for open use. **Key Issues and Solutions** For the mashup instructional design approach to flourish in education, a number of key challenges must be addressed. Technology, laws, culture and tradition; all are concerns when considering this new method. In the sections that follow we discuss some of the current issues facing the mashup instructional design movement, and propose potential solutions to those challenges. The success of the jigsaw/mashup instructional design concept in higher education hinges on the willingness of content authors to share their best resources openly for repurposing and reuse by others. To an extent, this idea flies in the face of traditional academic wisdom, where the original creation is prized and reworking another’s ideas is viewed as inferior. In higher education, there are significant pressures on faculty to produce unique intellectual property for publication as a requirement of the promotion and tenure process (Metros 2005). For some, integrating new technology and approaches such as mashup instructional design into their course might be met with negative consequences for their career (Harley 2008) in terms of perception within their department or institution regarding their ability to create original materials versus borrowing from existing learning objects. Remixing the ideas or materials of another may be mistakenly classified by some peers as plagiarism (Lamb 2007), leaving a faculty member in the undesirable position of defending their work as legal and valuable in its own right. What, then, would motivate educators to share their original works or to embrace the mashup philosophy in seeking out resources from others? How can the sharing nature of the Web 2.0 world support the needs of the education professional to be recognized for authorship and scholarly achievement within their field, while still promoting jigsaw instructional design for the benefit of others? Through the Creative Commons licensing system, authors may choose from a continuum of licensing ranging from completely open for reuse and revision to some rights reserved for specific purposes. Creative Commons supports this broad array of licensing as a new twist on standard copyright laws, which restrict content by default. For educators, the Creative Commons approach is the key to changing faculty views regarding sharing of original content. With licensing options such as Attribution 3.0, an author can rest assured that when their works are reused or repurposed, they will be credited by the user for the inclusion of their materials in the new work. When proper recognition is given during reuse, willingness to share on the part of faculty will likely increase. For the instructional designer or instructor seeking high-quality materials to remix, access to content management systems (CMS) or learning management systems (LMS) where these resources reside presents a significant barrier. At most institutions of higher education, access to course materials and learning objects is restricted to authorized student, faculty or administrative users of the CMS/LMS. This renders most materials “invisible and inaccessible” (Lamb 2007) to those seeking the best learning materials for inclusion in a mashup. Restricted access is touted by the system vendor as a beneficial feature of the CMS (Lee 2008); it ensures that copyrighted materials are not easily made available to the public for reuse that would fall outside the fair use doctrine (Lamb 2007). This closed system environment thwarts the would-be mashup designer; materials within the CMS are not searchable from outside web tools, thus a designer will never know how many great resources might be available to them if they only had the ability to locate them. As a result of the open source software movement, learning and content managements systems are evolving to support more open access for a wide array of users. Systems such as the Boddington LMS promote general openness as a default with restriction at the resource-level as an option, rather than the other way around (Lee 2008). This is a mashup designer’s dream scenario; an open LMS allows search engines to discover resources that are unrestricted. If these resources are paired with a Creative Commons license, the mashup opportunities multiply. To realize this dream will require the providers of LMS systems, and their clients, to accept some aspects of the open learning philosophy and to develop new methods of granting public access to certain areas of their programs. To effectively locate learning objects on the web, it is necessary for the resources to be appropriately tagged with metadata. Metadata represents information about the nature of the data, which aids in the organization and classification of the data from an administrative, structural or descriptive standpoint (Mathes 2004). For instructional designers, tagging learning objects with relevant metadata aids in streamlining and speeding access to appropriate materials through meta search engines. However, unless the author applies relevant tags before placing a learning object online, it may be difficult for others to find the resource through searches or to know quickly what the resource was designed to do. At present, there are no easy ways to automatically tag objects, and a standard tagging convention does not exist (Metros 2005). To address the metadata challenge, a folksonomy approach could be devised for tagging educational resources online. A folksonomy is a combination of “folk” and “taxonomy”, referring to a system of identifying terms (tags) generated by the users of a resource rather than the author, and lacking the hierarchical structure of a more rigid classification scheme (Mathes 2004). This folksonomy approach would assist the mashup instructional designer by promoting user-supplied metadata that would be searchable in web browsers. Allowing users to add tags of their choice to existing resources may dilute the perceived quality of the tagging, but it solves the problem of costly time and effort on the part of the original author (Mathes 2004). User communities are often enthusiastic about identifying and sharing resources they discover, and the folksonomy approach works well in such existing systems as Flickr and Delicious (Lamb 2007). The tools for mining metadata online are improving in usability, evolving from sophisticated systems that required programming skills to new user-friendly applications that favor the user with general computer skills. Programs including d.mix, Clip, Connect, Clone, Vegemite, and Yahoo Pipes are metasearch engines that provide the mashup designer with tools to quickly find and remix the resources they want. Yahoo Pipes, for example, features a drag-and-drop interface that allows the designer to combine resources found on a variety of sites and create a new end-product ready for redistribution online (Lamb 2007). Once a designer finds learning objects they would like to remix, they may find the technical process daunting. Have you ever received an electronic file from a colleague, only to discover that you cannot open it on your computer? This analogy is similar to the challenge a designer might face when materials are created in a format that doesn’t support editing. Portable Document Format (PDF), for example, is a common way to produce course handouts for ease of distribution and printing. However, PDFs are very difficult to edit for such minor revisions as correcting a word or date, unless you possess the specialized software to do so. Even with the appropriate software, some aspects of PDF files simply do not lend themselves to revision or import into other formats. When learning objects are created with proprietary software, it may be impossible to reuse them without the original program, or might require downloading and converting the resource to another format (Lamb 2007) which may prove time-consuming and difficult for those without specialized software and knowledge. “Part of making a resource reusable involves making the right choices for file formats” (Lamb 2007). When designing learning objects, instructors and designers can enhance the future utility of their product for other by choosing a format that is easily editable on most computers, such as HTML and text-formats. Technical standards such as the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM, discussed in Chapter 9) seek to mitigate the challenges of format conflicts, by promoting creation of content that can be reused by any SCORM-compliant system. Another approach to promoting future mashup is for the author to provide source files along with a finished multimedia product, allowing designers to access the object in the most basic component part format (Lamb 2007). For example, providing PowerPoint slide notes in text format, audio narration in MP3 format, and video segments in WAV format would allow a mashup designer to recreate relevant portions of the object in a new format, such as Captivate or Camtasia. Property rights granted to authors for the purpose of advancing public welfare by promoting scientific and artistic progress falls under copyright protections. Any tangible medium of expression including: literary works, musical works (including lyrics), dramatic works (including music), pantomimes, choreography, pictorial, graphic, sculptural works, motion pictures, audiovisuals, and architectural works are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years if copyrighted after January 1, 1978 or for 28 years and a 47 year renewal if copyrighted prior to 1978 (Becker, 2003). The use of others’ work is a privilege and not a right. Owners have a right to compensation for their work. New exciting technological advances does not change the law. Only lawyers and member of Congress can do that. However, the law does attempt to balance the rights of the author with the needs of society and underpaid instructors attempting to liven-up coursework. Thus, “Fair Use” criteria exist to curtail some creator rights by granting copyright exemptions in some situations. The four criteria for fair use are: Congress also attempted to clarify and broaden online instructor’s legal use of copyrighted materials through the TEACH (Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization) Act of 2002. This law allows instructors to digitalize materials for direct instruction as long as the material is stored on a secure server. The instructor must also notify students that the material is copyrighted and cannot be downloaded to student computers, copied and distributed or revised (CTL). The TEACH Act does not give teachers the right to copy full textbooks or upload full videos. Short video clips are protected, but the Act does not give specific time limits for the clips. While the TEACH Act acknowledges the need for digitalized materials and allows instructors more freedoms of use in mediated, nonprofit educational secure courses, it does not take in account that the digital era allows open access to information, ideas and people from around the world within seconds. Instructors can pull from literally billions of learning objects that can be jigsawed into new lessons that are shared utilizing Web 2.0 applications. The new digital era is changing the way teachers create lessons (Starkey, 2010). Unfortunately, many teachers while familiar with copyright laws and quick to stop plagiarizing among their students, often disregard the laws themselves (Bell, 2010). Teachers/professors build lessons designed to teach specific learning objectives. While publisher-created material exists for K-12, it can be difficult to differentiate the material for all students in K-12 and very little publisher-created material exists for higher education. Thus, teachers/professors need to supplement or create material in order for all students to succeed. But how? Whether creating an online course or a face to face course, one theorist to follow for jigsaw direction is Robert Gagne, who theorized that students learn best when nine events of instruction are met (Driscoll, 2005). Below is one suggested method to jigsaw/mashup a lesson from learning objects available on the web, using some of Gagne’s nine events as a guideline: First, //gain the student’s attention//. This is easily done with a fun activity such as a quick game, puzzle, video or audio clip, room decoration (change home page design for a web course), or even a crazy costume. It’s amazing all the fun learning objects available on the Internet. Search “attention getter” with the topic for hundreds of ideas. [|Lessonplanet.com] lists 160 bell ringer activities to introduce topics. Next, //inform learners of the learning objectives//. It can be as simple as putting the lesson objective on the board or in a PowerPoint presentation or it can be added to the attention getter video. The main idea is to prepare the student for learning the new topic. Third, //stimulate recall of prior knowledge//. Have fun with this! While it is possible to verbally remind students of prior lessons, excitement builds with fun. Try a review video clip, cartoon or anticipation chart. [|West Virginia Depart of Education] has some great activities to try. Present the new lesson with plenty of opportunities for students to //practice with your guidance//. Give plenty of feedback during the rehearsal stage of the lesson. This is a good time for labs, PowerPoint presentations, video clips, or a mixture of all of them. Search the topic along with the keyword, “lab”, “PowerPoint”, etc. [|TeacherTube] has school-safe videos. Another starting point is [|MIT OpenCourseWare]. This site has 2000 courses ready for use, including high school lessons. [|MERLOT], and [|WISC-Online,] are professional repositories with high level learning materials. //Assess student performance// after the lesson. Rubrics take the guesswork out of grading for both the student and the instructor. [|Kathy Schrock] lists several rubric resource sites including 4-Teachers [|Rubistar]. Online quizzes are easily built and distributed through sites such as [|quizstar]. Finally, //enhance retention and transfer of new knowledge// through projects. Projects allow for real life experiences. 4-Teachers has [|project based learning checklists] for easy adaptation for the classroom. As teachers/professors dig into learning objects, the goal is to remix the small jigsaw pieces of learning objects in the best way to create the ideal lesson for the course. Sometimes instructors need to change the jigsaw pieces a bit to make them fit the lesson. Minor editing can be quick and easy, however, major editing involving movie editing software should be avoided for learning objects. **Summary** Through mashup instructional design, the budding remix approach can achieve its potential of changing the way educational experiences are created, shared, and revised to meet the ever-changing needs of the teachers and learners. The jigsaw movement will gain momentum by addressing the issues of willingness to share, access to content, copyright permissions, and the ease of locating desired resources. Once these challenges are surmounted, designers and instructors can tackle the concerns of meeting defined learner needs, editing existing materials, and producing content in appropriate formats for reuse. “Building communities for educators means building “mixters” where educators can remix an abundant amount of content created by their peers to produce better, and more collaborative open educational resources” (Batson, Paharia & Kumar 2008). The jigsaw/mashup approach will support the growth and development of communities of practice for the greater purpose of developing the best educational resources today and in the future.
 * //Willingness of faculty to share//**
 * //Closed CMS systems//**
 * //Role of metadata in finding learning objects//**
 * //Appropriate formats for reusable objects//**
 * //Addressing perceptions about derivative works/plagiarism/copyright//**
 * 1) Is it for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes? Fair Use exemption is granted for teaching, scholarship or research.
 * 2) Nature of copyrighted works. (Be very careful of works created for education, they frown on illegally using their materials. Magazines, newspapers, etc., use is normally exempted under Fair Use.)
 * 3) The amount borrowed in relation to the whole work.
 * 4) The potential market effect of the borrowed material (Becker, 2003)
 * //How to re-mix lessons to fit what the teacher/professor wishes//**

**Terms & Definitions**
 * __Folksonomy__** - a system of classification that makes use of terms that occur naturally in the language of users of the system. []
 * __Jigsaw__** - combing small learning objects to create lessons, units, and courses.
 * __ Mashup __** - a file containing any or all media objects of text, graphics, audio, video, and animation, which recombines and modifies existing digital works to create a derivative work. []
 * __Metadata__** – data that describes other data, providing information about a certain item's content. []
 * __Remix__** - the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup). [|http://www.opencontent.org/definition/]
 * __Tag__** - keyword used to describe an article or website to help users search for relevant content. []

**References** "Attention getter" lesson plans. (n.d.). In //Lesson Planet: the search engine for teachers//. Retrieved from http://www.lessonplanet.com/search?keywords=%22attention+getter%22&media=lesson Batson, T., Paharia, N., Kumar, M. S. V. (2008). A harvest too large? A framework for educational abundance. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.), //Opening up education: the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge// (pp. 89-103). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Becker, G. H. (2003). Copyright: A guide to information and resources, 3rd ed. Lake Mary Bell, M. (2010). What teachers know (and don't know) about technology--And does anybody know they don't know? //MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 17//(4), 39-41. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Burke, R. (2009). //How to use apple imovie//. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/how_4838996_use-imovie-apple.html Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Lamb, B. (2007). Dr. Mashup; or, why educators should learn to stop worrying and love the remix. //EDUCAUSE Review//, //42//(4), Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume42/DrMashuporWhyEducatorsShouldLe/161747 Metros, S. (2007). Learning objects: a rose by any other name... //EDUCAUSE Review, 40//(4), Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume40/LearningObjectsARosebyAnyOther/15798 Mashup. (n.d.). In //Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia//. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup Mathes, A. (2004). //Folksonomies - cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata//. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-‍Champaign, IL. Retrieved from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html Getting started with windows movie maker. (2011). Retrieved from http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Getting-started-with-Windows-Movie-Maker Harley, D. (2008). Why understanding the use and users of open education matters. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.), //Opening up education: the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge// (pp. 197-211). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Lee, S. (2008). The gates are shut: technical and cultural barriers to open education. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.), //Opening up education: the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge// (pp. 47-59). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Advanced Distributed Learning. (n.d.). //SCORM introduction//. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/default.aspx Schrock, K. (2011). //Kathy Schrock's guide for educators//. Retrieved from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/assess.html Starkey, L., Corbett, S., Bondy, A., & Davidson, S. (2010). Intellectual property: what do teachers and students know? //International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 20//(3), 333-344. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9088-6 TEACH Act. (n.d.). In //Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopedia//. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEACH_Act Teachertube: teach the world. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www1.teachertube.com/ West Virginia Department of Education, (n.d.). //Activating prior knowledge//. Charleston, WV: Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/strategybank/activating.html