Tag Archives: Educause

Universal design for learning

Emma Fletcher
Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor
York St John University

EDUCAUSE 2017

As a UCISA bursary winner for 2017, I got the opportunity to attend the annual EDUCAUSE conference, this year held in Philadelphia, PA.

The first session of Day 1 of the EDUCAUSE conference was from Dr Michio Kaku, a futurist, theoretical physicist and author. He spoke about his predictions for the future, the digitisation of society and commerce, although he admitted it is hard to predict the future. He suggested that the internet will be everywhere in the future, so we will view it in the same way we view electricity now. We will have the internet in contact lenses, meaning getting online will be as easy as blinking. This will mean we have information easily available to us, so in education memorising facts/figures will be less important with more focus on concepts being taught. He also spoke of lecturers roles becoming more of a mentoring one. Whilst it was thought provoking, some of it was rather science fiction.

Further sessions in Day 1 of the conference covered the key areas of universal design for learning (UDL) and learning management systems (LMS). In ‘A look at how an LMS can help you implement your UDL strategies’, Kenneth Chapman (D2L) and Sandra Connelly (Rochester Institute of Technology) covered the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework  principles and how the LMS can play a role in supporting some of these  They focussed on the issues around accessibility, levelling the playing field so that everyone has equal access to what is being designed, as well as ensuring that this is designed and added up front.

Resources and downloads from the presentation are now available.

 

Technology Enhanced Active Learning and Active Learning Spaces

Emma Fletcher
Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor
York St John University

EDUCAUSE 2017

At the recent EDUCASE 2017 conference, which I was able to join courtesy of a UCISA bursary, I was able to attend a session on Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs), named by EDUCAUSE as the top strategic technology of 2017 due to the popularity and innovation of ALCs. Active learning classrooms (ALCs) are designed to create affordances that support active learning pedagogies (which research has demonstrated are better when compared with more passive types of learning).

Presented by D. Christopher Brooks and Malcolm Brown (from EDUCAUSE), Melody Buckner  (University of Arizona), Adam Finkelstein (McGill University) and Sehoya Cotner (University of Minnesota), the session explored the research around ALCs as well as looking at the teaching practices that work best in them. There were examples from research, at the University of Minnesota, where the traditional teaching (large lectures) was compared with smaller ALC style teaching. This showed that students in traditional classrooms achieved as expected, however ALC students outperformed against their expected grades. One message that came out of the session was that potential of ALCs can only be realised if you have good teaching. Changing the space may mean that the instructor doesn’t know how to teach in the new space (teachers may try and use the traditional lecture style in the new spaces so, for example, students would have their back to lecturers) and active learning gains are achieved by academics teaching to fit the learning space.

Goals of the Active Learning Initiative

The third day of the EDUCAUSE conference, had a  further technology session presented by Virginia Lacefield, Enterprise Architect at University of Kentucky, looking at ‘Evaluating the Impact of Technology-Enhanced Active Learning Classrooms on Students and Instructors: Lessons from our First Full Year’.

Between 2014 and 2016, the University of Kentucky had opened 17 new Technology Enhanced Active Learning (TEAL) spaces at the university and carried out an evaluation of the impact of these on teaching, student learning outcomes and retention. The data collected consisted of surveys from both students and instructors as well as classroom observations and course grades. The classroom observations (adapted from the University of Minnesota developed instrument) were timed observations where every five minutes they marked down what the students and instructor were doing.

The observations showed a great deal of variation between classes. The findings of the staff survey showed that 18% of staff did not plan to use active learning strategies and 29% of staff planned not to use the TEAL equipment. 126 of the courses taught in TEAL had enough data points for comparison, 35 of these courses had significant grade differences for all students (29 had a positive difference favouring the TEAL sections, six had a positive difference favouring the non-TEAL sections). When they looked at retention, they found that there was significant correlation between number of TEAL courses taken and second year retention. As a result they are increasing the support for staff to help support the use of TEAL, such as technology/pedagogy open houses, scheduled one-on-one support appointments, giving advance notice of classroom assignment and communicating about available support resources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other highlights of the EDUCAUSE conference included:

 

 

 

Preparation for EDUCAUSE 2017 #EDU17

Emma Fletcher
Technology Enhanced Learning Advisor
York St John University

 

 

 

As a UCISA bursary winner for 2017, I got the opportunity to attend the annual EDUCAUSE conference, this year held in Philadelphia, PA.

Before setting off for America, I downloaded the EDUCAUSE app, which was invaluable over the course of the conference. This allowed me to look at the agenda for the conference and start to identify some of the sessions I wanted to attend. The conference had general sessions as well as parallel sessions over the three days I was attending. The sessions were divided into tracks, with driving innovation in teaching and learning being the main one I focused on. Inevitably, whilst attending the sessions I chose, I worried I had selected the ‘wrong’ ones!

I arrived in Philadelphia a few days before the conference, to allow me to acclimatise and get my bearings. This was my first trip to America. Philadelphia itself is a lovely city – I would definitely recommend a visit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The conference location was a short walk from my hotel, so I headed there bright and early on Wednesday morning to register and collect my badge (which I personalised with stickers at the ribbon station). The venue itself, the Philadelphia Convention Centre, was huge! My step count over the course of the conference can attest to this! The EDUCAUSE staff were friendly and welcoming, with someone on hand to point you in the right direction (which was likely with such a sprawling venue and a number of parallel presentations).

 

Next generation Digital Learning Architecture

 

 

 

 

 

Ed Stout
Support Services Manager
Leeds Beckett University

EUNIS 2017

Dr. Rob Abel, Chief Executive Officer of IMS Global Learning Consortium, came across from the USA to talk us through his thoughts on the future of Digital Learning Architecture in Higher Education at EUNIS 2017. He very quickly put strong emphasis on the importance of a digital transformation strategy within HE institutions and outlined that IT should be an enabler to teaching and learning innovation. Dr. Abel’s presentation had so much content, in truth it was difficult to keep up. He gave us an overview of the tools and technology in place within the HE market for teaching and learning as outlined in the photo below: (apologies for poor image quality)


 

 

 

 

 

 

An outdated architecture for learning had different systems uniquely silo-ed with little to no interoperability:


 

 

 

 

 

 

What if now it was quicker and easier to make systems work in harmony, to benefit the connected learner? Well, Dr. Abel, in collaboration with Malcolm Brown (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative) and Jack Suess (University of Maryland), had previously written a paper in 2013 analysing “A New Architecture for Learning” which highlights the need for an IT department to be agile, flexible and allow for personalisation when integrating new innovative learning technologies. Seamless interoperability between both current and future developed systems is the key to success; not simply an over-reliance on a current Learning Management System (LMS), but an ecosystem developed beyond it. Dr Abel referenced a very useful paper produced by the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative in 2015 entitled “The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment” which is worth your time to read and is available here

Dr. Abel then took the opportunity to take us on a high-speed tour of the benefits and impact of Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), which include:

  • Reduced integration time and cost by a factor of 100-1000x
  • Ubiquitous across 70+ learning platforms
  • Hundreds of certified LTI apps of varying types
  • Foundation of interoperable edtech ecosystem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMS Global have publicly released Caliper, a learning analytics interoperability framework that enables the collection, storage and transportation of data about learning. The Caliper framework removes the limitations of a single LMS system and opens up a broad range of benefits to be realised through the integration and interoperability of multiple systems. It is worth noting that it is being taken seriously by many HE institutions and partners, so is not one to simply toss aside without further investigation.

Seven things you should know about Caliper

This blog post first appeared on http://www.edstout.co.uk/2017/06/25/day-2-reflections/

UK vs. US HE – Blockchain and student engagement

liz_ellis

 

 

Elizabeth Ellis
Product Development Manager
Learning Innovation, Learning and Teaching Solutions,
The Open University

Cross-pond impressions from EDUCAUSE 2016

EDUCAUSE 2016 in Anaheim was a really valuable and thought provoking experience, especially as a stranger in a strange land.  I’ve wanted to attend this conference for a long time – having been to ALT C a number of times and attended EDEN, this felt like it would provide me with a trifecta. Because of my role as a product development manager in Technology Enhanced Learning Innovation, I often find myself with a foot in both the technology camp and the pedagogy camp of learning and teaching (I don’t actually think they’re camps – I think they’re symbionts and crucial to students being successful in their higher education careers, but I digress).

I have attended other US-based conferences, and it’s always a bit of a culture shock. The sheer scale of EDUCAUSE was quite unnerving: 8000 colleagues from 1800 institutions across 46 countries. The queue for lunch was terrible.

The conference hashtag provided an invaluable backchannel for discussion and arguments, and is worth a visit (#EDU16). If you would like to see the day by day account of my experience, then do feel free to grab my notes. But this article is more a personal reflection on the three things that stood out for me from EDUCAUSE – where the US Higher Education sector is ahead, where the UK Higher Education sector is ahead, and where we are about level.

Where the US Higher Education sector is ahead

One of the most attended and talked about sessions was on ‘Why the blockchain will revolutionise credentials’. One of the speakers was Chris Jager from Learning Machine. A transcript is available from the link.

It struck me that the presentation and ensuing conversation about blockchain certifications was far more developed than the conversations that have happened locally to me at The Open University, or from what I have gathered in the UK sector. The work that the Knowledge Media Institute at the OU has been doing on blockchain is still in the realms of research and innovation, whereas the HE sector in the US appears to be already beginning to tackle the cultural shifts of implementation. The temperature on blockchain credentials in the sector is still lukewarm in places, with some claiming there is a fear that giving students control of their credentials may undermine those credentials. A more mercenary view is that HEIs are loathe to transition to blockchain certification as there is a market for transcripts and money to be made when students request theirs.

MIT’s Open Standards for Blockchain Certificates are being used, and the advent of interoperable standards represents a shift from idea to reality, and a new infrastructure of trust between students, institutions and employers. This is interesting when compared with criticism of the Open Badges movement, which employers have been fairly sceptical about. UK HEIs have made more use of badges, but predominantly in informal learning spaces or for soft skills.

Blockchain certification could be more compelling within the US HE sector, by virtue of its legacy of for-fee qualifications, and also the high degree of transfer between community, state and private colleges.

In the UK, with the recent advent of tuition fees, the onus has perhaps been less for more mainstream HEIs. However, The Open University has always charged a fee, and is also seeing an increase in student transfers both in and out of the institution. OU students are also more unconventional in routes through education and employment, and blockchain certifications could be a valuable string to the University’s bow.

In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine, Martin Hall points out that blockchain certifications ‘could be an effective way of providing Britain’s Advanced Apprenticeships, for which components of the programme have to be delivered by a number of organisations’. (THE, 28 November 2016)

In The Open University’s Innovating Pedagogy 2016 horizon scan, Blockchain has been identified as High Impact but with a long timescale (4 plus years). The US feels ahead in this particular game.

Full disclosure: I have become borderline obsessed with student engagement, partnership and co-creation this year. I have been co-administering and organising a student consultation and engagement panel, running Hack Days to get students involved in future developments, and generally trying to find ways to not only give our students more direct access to the creation of learning and teaching content and tools, but also to give the Open University’s academic and academic related staff more direct access to students eager to be involved in practical ways.

My colleague David Vince and I published a paper on our work on this in September, outlining our approach to involving students in Technology Enhanced Learning Innovation, referring to the key frameworks that underpin ‘student as partners’ and ‘students as change agents’ in UK HEIs, from Jisc, the Higher Education Academy, and covered in the Teaching Excellence Framework.

‘The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a catalyst to rethink the role of the student in modern Higher Education Institutions. The Higher Education Academy in the selection criteria for the National Teaching Fellowship defined personal excellence as ‘evidence of enhancing and transforming the student learning experience’ (HEA, 2015).

Part of teaching excellence should therefore be the proactive engagement of students in matters relating to their learning experience, beyond assessment outcomes. More recently within the higher education sector, engagement initiatives such as ‘students as partners’ and ‘students as change agents’ have emerged.

Students as partners is characterised by active student engagement and collaboration ‘[…] in which all involved – students, academics, professional services staff, senior managers, students’ unions and so on – are actively engaged in and stand to gain from the process of learning and working together. Partnership is essentially a process of engagement, not a product. It is a way of doing things, rather than an outcome in itself.’ (Healey et al., 2014)

Students as change agents sees students being actively involved in the change process. In 2015, Jisc launched the ‘Change Agents’ Network’ which is a ‘highly active community of staff and students working in partnership to support curriculum enhancement and innovation’. (Jisc, 2015)’

In two sessions during the conference where I would have expected a robust argument for the involvement of students in the design and implementation of educational technology, there was no mention from presenters, and even the floor seemed largely truculent about the idea when it was brought up.

Design Thinking Process: Edtech Adoption’, an otherwise useful session from Edsurge, didn’t refer at all to the importance of testing new tools and technologies with students in implementation, much less involve them during ideation.

It was a similar experience in the ‘Trends Spanning Education’ session, despite having a great quote – ‘Democratisation of education innovation, it’s starting to happen with people rather than to people’ – people in this sense appeared to be academic and institutional staff rather than students.

Several comments that emerged during out of conference conversations and the Twitter backchannel featured the kneejerk reaction of students not knowing what they need, a conversation that has evolved now in the UK to understanding the balance between need, want and institutional responsibility towards them.

Some US colleagues talked about consultancy processes that include students, but there does not appear yet to be the drive to formalise student partnership as an approach. The emphasis is on institutional collaboration and partnership for student success, rather than partnership in the sense of student engagement as co-creators and co-owners of their learning experiences.

Where the UK and US Higher Education sectors are about level

Almost as soon as I hit the pre-meetings and the Twitter backchannel at EDUCAUSE the term NGDLE started to permeate. Not a new term, certainly, but Next Generation Digital Learning Environments as a concept suddenly seemed to be everywhere. And then I returned home and almost immediately fell in with an online consultation activity being coordinated by Lawrie Phipps, senior co-design manager at Jisc, using a combination of Twitter and blogs, on what NGDLEs and by extension co-creation could mean for the future of learning and teaching.

It also corresponds closely with my work, which is focused heavily on digital learning environments, as well as student engagement in learning and teaching tools and platforms development.

The UK and US higher education sectors appear to be level on this concept, as the discussion moves further way from current vendors and current platforms and tools, and more towards the use of technology in its purest sense for the furthering of learning and teaching, and how students are both key users and contributors in that space.

The key questions for me around this important and innovative concept are:

  • What does next generation mean for online and distance education, and what does it require of it?
  • How can NGDLEs be a vehicle for the best parts of online and distance education: the open web, co-creation, student engagement, technology, and digital capability?
  • What does student success look like in a NGDLE?
  • What do NGDLEs signify about innovation in online education?
  • How is the Teaching Excellence Framework creating a space for NGDLEs and how is it restricting it?

None of which I have any answers for yet, but I’m enjoying the conversation, and it’s allowing me the space to stop and consider the opinions of colleagues, the layering of experiences over my own, and generally the ongoing realisation of that best part of attending conferences: being part of a community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A version of this blog post originally appeared on the Learning Innovation blog

Bursary review – Educause

michelle

Michelle Griffiths
ITS Project Manager
IT Services
University of Oxford
Member of UCISA-PCMG

 

 

 

I applied for and was extremely delighted to be awarded a UCISA Bursary to attend the conference of my choice in 2015. I chose to attend Educause 2015 , based on very extremely good feedback from fellow UCISA_PCMG committee members who had attended in previous years.

Educause is a non-profit association whose mission is to advance higher education through the use of Information technology. It is based in North America, but has global reach, with members in Europe, Africa and Australasia. Each year the Educause annual conference is attended by upwards of 7000 higher education professionals. Oxford University has been a member of Educause for a number of years, and has presented at past conferences.

The main areas of interest from the Educause programme based on my current projects were in the areas of identity management, smart cards, and risk management. The organization of the event was extremely good; there was a mobile app that you could download and schedule which presentations you wanted to attend, which then formed your own customized conference schedule. The event was vast: with approximately 7000 attendees, you need to be really well organized. The “First timer pit stop” area was a must on the first day of the event after registration. The “International Welcome lounge” became my home from home after attending the presentations. I used the IT equipment in the International Lounge to type up my blogs, ready to be posted onto the UCISA blog site:

The keynote speakers in particular were really inspiring and engaging. I was particularly moved by the closing keynote speech by Emily Pillotan.

Emily runs a non-profit design company and shared a few of her project stories with the audience. These included a farmers’ market public space, a middle school library, two homes for the homeless, creating a space for young girls, and creating items to be used in a domestic abuse centre. After explaining each scheme, Emily provided quotes from individuals that worked on the project. This was by far the focal point which really underlines why Emily does what she does and the value she helps put back into people’s lives and communities.

The general session was presented by Daniel Pink from MIT, who described motivation from the perspective of science. Daniel said that everyone in the room was an expert in motivation, they just may not realise it yet! He also said that we all have an explicit knowledge of physics without having studied it as a major. Daniel discussed when you should reward good behavior and bad behavior, and whether this changes behavior. I think I will be adding one of his books to my reading list: Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

One of the sessions that made me think outside of the box a little when it comes to career aspirations was the panel discussion “From IT Support to CIO: A journey of three women” The career path from support to CIO is not a usual one, in my experience; however, the experiences shared by the panel made it clear that if you are motivated and think big, you can succeed to the highest heights!  Originally, I was not planning to attend this presentation, but whilst looking for another room, I came across this, which seemed more appealing!

Since attending Educause a number of Identity Management suppliers have been in contact with me, which is near perfect timing for the IAM programme. I have passed onto the programme manager in charge of IDM all the contact details I gathered whilst attending Educause, which will be used to help source an IDM solution.

I would like to thank UCISA for giving me the opportunity to attend Educause 2015. It has helped me broaden my networking and knowledge base, learn from my peers, gain a useful insight into how International institutions work, and bring all that I have learnt back to Oxford University and UCISA_PCMG to share with colleagues and peers.

Day Type of Session Presenter(s) Title
1 Session 1 – Opening keynote Daniel Pink (MIT) How small wins can transform your organization (blog post)
1 Session 2 – Presentation Lawrence Bobranski (University of SasKatchewan) A practical approach to risk management that delivers results  (blog post)
1 Session 3 –Poster Myles Darson – JISC National BI Service for UK education
1 Session 4 – Panel Clint Davis, Mike Carlin and Thomas Hoover (UNC and UTC) Transforming IT – a tale of two institutions
2 Session  1- Direct poll Randall Albert (AD, Ringling college of art and design) Project Management (blog post)
2 Session 2 – Keynote speaker Andrew McAfee (MIT) The second machine age: work, progress and prosperity in the time of brilliant technologies 
2 Session 3 – Panel discussion Melody childs, Cathy O’Bryan, Wendy Woodward and Sue B. Workman From IT Support to CIO: A journey of three women  (blog post
2 Session 4 – presentation Emory Craig, Mike Griffith and Maya Georgeiva Wearable tech and augmented vision – Pedagogy in the future
3 Session 1 – presentation Ron Kraemer, Kevin Morooney and Anne West Trust and Identity in education and research identity for everyone  (blog post
3 Session 2- Closing keynote Emily Pillotan If you build it: The power of design to change the world  (blog post)

Climbing the DIKW Pyramid: Applying Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom principles at the University of Leeds

Tim Banks
Faculty IT Manager
University of Leeds

One of the many areas of knowledge that the EDUCAUSE conference  helped me to develop was the importance of metrics and monitoring. All good metrics are based upon accurate data, but data isn’t useful on its own or in isolation. Here is one concrete example of how my attendance at EDUCAUSE 2015 has helped to shape my professional development and bring benefits to my institution.

The Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) framework makes reference to the DIKW pyramid (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom) as can be seen below. Wisdom is based on sound knowledge, which in turn comes from useful information, which is based on accurate data.

final blog image

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s take an example of a typical automated monitoring system. An example of each level of the DIKW pyramid is as follows:

Data
09/01 18:29:45: Message from InterMapper 5.8.1

Event: Critical
Name: website-host.leeds.ac.uk Nagios Plugin
Document: Unix: Webhosting
Address: 129.11.1.1
Probe Type: Nagios Plugin
Condition: CRITICAL – Socket timeout after 10 seconds

Time since last reported down: 39 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes, 47 seconds Device’s up time: N/A

Information
This alert relates to one of our website servers.
This is not normal behaviour.

Knowledge
There is a planned network upgrade in one of our datacentres between 18:00 – 19:00 which is expected to cause network outages.
The server is part of a clustered pair with only one node affected, so service to end users will not be interrupted.

Wisdom
No action is required.

Most systems will generate endless data records. With some careful filtering of the data, it is possible to automatically generate ‘Information’. However, in most cases, ‘Knowledge’ (and in all cases ‘Wisdom’) will need some level of human intervention.

My team have recently started using the University of Leeds IT Service Management system (ServiceNow) and as part of this move, we have updated all of our automated monitoring systems so they now report into one shared email account. Previously,  they were going to various individual and shared email accounts, so we didn’t have a single view of everything. This single shared email account is our data store in the DIKW model. We have then applied a number of rules to identify the subset of alerts from the general notifications. We have defined alerts are something which we have defined as requiring human intervention. This takes us to the information level. These alerts are automatically entered into our Service Management system as incidents, where they are reviewed by a human and acted on as appropriate.

The ultimate goal is to use the configuration management database (CMDB) and change management records to try and automate some of the ‘Knowledge’ layer. e.g. Approved change X will affect the network between 07:00 and 07:30 on 5th May in Data Centre 1 in which server Y is located, so ignore any warnings from this server on this date between these times.

Accurate monitoring is the basis of building meaningful metrics. You cannot generate a useful metric on the ‘number of unplanned service outages in the last six months’ based on data alone. By ensuring that we have a model which allows us to record useful knowledge based on the raw data, we will be able to build some accurate and meaningful metrics.

The sessions I attended on data monitoring and metrics, in particular the one by led by the Consortium for the Establishment of Information Technology Performance Standards (CEITPS), really helped to define this approach and stopped me from falling into the trap of generating endless metrics (of little value) based on data alone. Hearing from other institutions that are further ahead on this journey than us and having the benefit of their advice on what approach to take and what pitfalls to avoid has been invaluable. I am also part of a small group at the University who are responsible for defining the institution-wide IT configuration management standards for recording and managing IT assets. Again, I will be bringing information and knowledge from EDUCAUSE sessions to these discussions.

Some reflections on the UCISA Bursary and Educause

simon

 

 

Simon Geller
Senior Project Manager
University of Sheffield
Member of UCISA-PCMG

 

 

I was very pleased to win a bursary to attend Educause 15. On reflection, however, I’m not sure that this is the best conference for bursary applicants to apply to.

So, what are my reservations? Well, it’s a very large conference, and therein lies the problem. It was hard to pick out presentations that could be relevant to my role, varied as it is, and I’d say my judgement was about 50% correct.

With the plenary sessions, of course, there were no choices to be made other than to get up and be ready. These large events were very professionally presented, although the topics were highly generalised – I think the conference could have had more of them, with speakers who had a strong overview of ICT in HE.

So how was the bursary of benefit to my professional development, to my institution, and to the HE IT community? The key thing I brought home was that my colleagues in the US are facing the same problems as we do in the UK – institutional inertia, resistance to change, ever-reducing budgets and ever-higher workloads, with a failure of senior management either to defend the industry or to bring in the kind of far-reaching changes that would enable us to adapt more quickly to changing circumstances, whether that is the political landscape or technological advances. However, my US colleagues didn’t seem to have the answers to these questions any more than we do in the UK.

Coming from University of Sheffield, the slow rate with which US institutions had embraced new technology was also quite striking. Technologies such as Google Docs, which we have been using for years, seemed like strange new innovations to many people. This is, however, not much different from UK institutions, with many still dependent on legacy systems for their core services.

I also learnt that interest in “sustainable IT” is on the wane. To an extent, this is because sustainability has become more embedded in the industry – personal devices and data centres have become more efficient, while the adoption of cloud services, which give institutions the opportunity to off-load their carbon footprints onto the cloud provider, do tend to be more energy-efficient than locally provided ICT services.

On reflection, therefore, I think it would be better to encourage colleagues to apply for bursaries to attend conferences that focus on their specialised areas, rather than big, generalised conferences.

 

Identity and access management –a project from the US

michelle

 

Michelle Griffiths
ITS Project Manager
IT Services
University of Oxford
Member of UCISA-PCMG

Looking at TIER

This Educause session Trust and Identity in Education and Research: Identity for Everyone  was run by Ron Kraemer (Vice President and Chief Information and Digital Officer, University of Notre Dame), Kevin Morooney (Vice Provost for Information Technology-CIO, The Pennsylvania State University), Ann West (AVP, Trust and Identity, Internet2 ) and Steven Zoppi (Vice President, Internet2). Internet2’s  Trust and Identity in Education and Research (TIER) initiative  will provide a common framework for campus identity and access management (IAM) components.

An overview of the TIER project

  • TIER will provide a set of integrated components that address IAM as a whole.
  • 500 US HE institutions are involved.
  • Primary users: medical students, researchers, faculty staff and students.
  • TIER will address community requirements across components, and sustain components that were developed together.
  • During the next few years the project will focus on maturity and sustainability models for workforce and funding.

The TIER vision was outlined for the Educause audience:

  • “We believe identity will be a service.”
  • “We believe in a cloud service with campus localization.”
  • “We believe that if we don’t develop it, then we will have to accept that someone else has (social identities).”
  • “Effective collaboration with partners will be key (includes federated agencies).”
  • “We know we are at least three to five years from achieving this vision.”
  • “We will build frameworks and tools to make it simpler for ourselves.”

Components of TIER

  • Secure directories
  • Identity and metadata services
  • Single sign-on and identity components
  • Registry services
  • Workflow services
  • AuthN (who) & AuthZ (What)
  • Federated registry (Directory Search/lookup)
  • Persistence and reputation

The TIER project is moving from investor to sustainable models (financials and governance) via the TCIC – Tier Community Investor Council. Fifty campuses invested $75,000 each over three years ($4 million in total which includes funding provided by TIER themselves).  There is also programme support for community – Anne West (AUP trust and Identity), technology – Steve Zoppi (AUP services integration and architecture) and sustainability (community engagement and membership).

The first integrated release is scheduled for 2106.  There will be minimal installation/configuration of user interfaces, and the preliminary requirements will be set for scalable content.  The objective is point in time consistency.

Partners involved: Shibboleth, Grouper and COmanage 

The primary focus for the first release is: container/packaging, APIs, continuous update cycles every eight months, 250 user stories driving requirements, documentation and the Initial deployment.

Progress

  • MOU management community forum
  • Financial timetabling and reporting
  • Technical requirements revision
  • Working groups
  • First two corporate partners – Unicon (for Shibboleth and Grouper) and Spherical Cow Group (for COmanage)

The work is sponsored by the community, who are responsible for the for HE standards and by Internet2 who is responsible for industry approaches.

Approach

  • Several key working groups are formed or are forming including 3M (monitoring, measuring & managing)
  • Continuous meaningful feedback (how the community is utilising the components everywhere)
  • Community adoption – working group needed
  • Emerging community contributors

Educause – the final day

simon

 

Simon Geller
Senior Project Manager
University of Sheffield
Member of UCISA-PCMG

 

 

 

The final session I attended was on preparing your organisation for the Cloud. It was noted that most organisations were already in the Cloud to some extent. A question was raised – ‘what does an IT Director actually do?’ – something I’m sure we’ve all asked ourselves.

The last general session was an inspirational talk from Emily Pilloton of Project H Design, who has found some exciting new ways of teaching kids how to build things. It was a great way to remind ourselves of what the business we’re in is all about – sometimes, as we plough away in our chosen furrows, this can be forgotten.

All in all, a very interesting conference; thanks to UCISA for making it possible for me to attend.