I mentioned in my blog that I think we should start an online journal focused on the scholarship of teaching and learning with technology. I hope some will respond to that with some expressions of interest here, in response to this forum post. I am not looking for guarantees of commitment, just expressions of interest, but if you want to say what you’re interested in specifically (reviewing articles, being the/an editor, helping to design the journal, writing for it, whatever), please feel free and encouraged to indicated that.

I mentioned in my blog that I think we should start an online journal focused on the scholarship of teaching and learning with technology. I hope some will respond to that with some expressions of interest here, in response to this forum post. I am not looking for guarantees of commitment, just expressions of interest, but if you want to say what you’re interested in specifically (reviewing articles, being the/an editor, helping to design the journal, writing for it, whatever), please feel free and encouraged to indicated that.

[Stephen Powers]

Consider this reply as putting me somewhere between a guarantee of commitment (reviewing / writing) and a very mild expression of interest (designing / editing). Looking forward to working on the project and producing a journal.

[Barbara R. Walters, PhD – AKA Barbara Walters Doehrman]

An expression of interest from someone whose desk is piled high with other proejcts. Let me think about which area and how much after the Spring 2010 term ends tonight and I’ve had a chance to catch my breath.

[Steve Brier]

I’m interested, for sure, but need to note that I have just launched a similar online, open source effort in my Interactive Technology and Pedagogy program, which will focus on publishing the work of the doctoral students in the program over the years. I’d hate for the ITP journal to end up competing with your effort, George.

[Joseph Ugoretz]

I’m interested–I could volunteer as one of the editors–although I certainly wouldn’t want to be in competition with the ITP journal. We could get together and discuss how to make the divisions?

[Philip A. Pecorino]

I am willing to be invovled in some way but a good deal depends on just what sort of journal this is to be. Yes I understand that a lot will depend on the interests of those interested in doing this but that still leaves the question unanswered. Here are two more questions:

How would this journal differ from JSOTL, the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at Indiana U ? JoSoTL is a forum for the dissemination of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in higher education for the community of teacher-scholars. There is a peer review process with this journal. https://www.iupui.edu/~josotl/

How different from IJSOTL at Georgia Southern ?
the IJSOTL is the International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, an open, peer-reviewed, international electronic journal published twice a year by the Center for Excellence in Teaching at Georgia Southern University to be an international vehicle for articles, essays, and discussions about the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and its applications in higher/tertiary education today. All submissions undergo a double-blind peer-review process.
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/index.htm

If this is to be CUNY focused then what would be its scope? How often and how “published”? What would provide cache for contributors?

[George Otte]

To Steve and Joe:

As someone on the advisory committee for the ITP program, the last thing I would want to do is get in the way of an online journal for that program. I think the world (not least of all the world of the scholarship of teaching and learning with technology) is big enough for more than one journal, each with its distinctive focus and ethos. As Joe suggests, we should probably not try to resolve just what these are here and now but take some time to discuss this.

[George Otte]

To Phil:

I’ll make a response similar to the response I gave to Steve and Joe: how this journal defines itself is still very much to be worked out (and certainly not unilaterally by me). I will note that the journals you mention are not focused specifically on teaching and learning *with technology* though.

[Matthew K. Gold (he/him)]

As you know, George, I’m interested in being involved. Thanks for getting this conversation started.

[Kate Moss]

It sounds like a good idea, George. I am not sure yet how I might be involved, but am interested.

[Maura A. Smale (she/her)]

Me too! Thanks for starting this thread, George.

[Monica Berger (She/her/hers)]

And me as well.

[Scott Voth (he/him)]

I’m interested as well. I started a wiki page called Open Journal Systems (http://commons.gc.cuny.edu/wiki/index.php/Open_Journal_Systems) – just so everyone is familiar with OJS (if that’s an appropriate platform). Check out the screenshots of the various OJS journals.

[George Otte]

Thanks to Steve Powers, Barbara Walters, Steve Brier, Joe Ugoretz, Phil Pecorino, Matt Gold, Kate Moss, Maura Smale, Monica Berger, and Scott Voth for their expressions of interest over the last few days. Given that Tony Picciano also expressed interest/support in a comment on the blog post, I think we have a kind of critical mass that can think about next steps.

Scott has given us one in directing us to the logical platform and various models. Phil, like Steve, has asked questions about scope and focus. It’s probably time to wrestle with these.

I said I thought of this journal as something for CUNY — but do we want to restrict it thus? I suggested the focus could be on the scholarship of teaching and learning with technology — but do we want to refine and/or reconsider that focus? We don’t want to get in the way of the online journal planned for the Interactive Technology and Pedagogy program, so perhaps Steve (or Joe or Matt could) say a little about what’s planned there and how the proposed SoTLwT for CUNY might differ.

[Stephen Powers]

Just some purposefully selected random thoughts on possible journal tracks…
Some Journal Areas for DIscussion (from the Sloan Blended Learning Conference):
– Instructional Design/Course Development and Pedagogy
– Academic Planning/Institutioanl Strategies
– Faculty Development
– Assessment and/or Evaluation

From UNC:
Collaborative efforts to accomplish TLT initiatives
Instructional resources, approaches, and outcomes
Technological, pedagogical, library and administrive policies and support issues
research, assessment, evaluation, and critical analyses to increase understanding of TLT practices
quality assurance, students, efficiency, and effectiveness of TLT efforts

From the John Jay Tech Conference:
How has technology not just changed but improved our instructional and administrative practices? (Administrative)
What changes are most promising, most scalable and sustainable? (Research Summary)
What are the changes we might consider in the delivery of instructional content, the sharing of information and knowledge, the improvement of practices and procedures? (Best Practices)

From Fordham’s Perspectives: Journal of Adult Learning Journal
Research
Research Summaries
Best Practices
Book Reviews
Issues and Trends

[Joseph Ugoretz]

I’ve been thinking about this over the weekend, and I think we should probably start with a broad question.

Why a journal?

In the world where we can have blogs and group blogs at will, what does a journal (online or paper) provide that nothing else does. Focus, specific topics, breadth, depth, none of those are unique to a journal.

What I think makes a journal a journal, and makes it still a desirable and effective medium, is that it can provide credentialing and authority–real peer review and recognition of some kind of seriousness or rigor or review status.

So if that’s what we’re aiming to provide–a vehicle where CUNY faculty (only CUNY faculty? I think I would say yes–that would set this journal apart from the others that already exist) can publish work that is of serious scholarly value. We all have our own blogs or group blogs or many other places for reflective essays, trying out new but uncertain ideas, or engaging in conversations around stances or opinions. Blogs, in fact, work much better for that.

A key part of the definition of SoTL is that “S” for “scholarship.” We should look to solicit, review, accept, and then publish work that turns our ability and judgment and scholarly rigor as a lens onto (our own or others’) teaching and learning. We would want detailed, qualitative (my own bias, although I know others like quantitative), focused (with specific questions and testable hypotheses), scholarship about teaching and learning (with technology).

I do think there is room for something like this–peer-reviewed, suitable for tenure and promotion consideration, CUNY-limited (but of course interesting to a non-CUNY audience), and directed not at any academic discipline, but at the discipline of teaching and learning.

Just my preliminary thoughts….

[Anonymous]

I’d also be interested!

[George Otte]

Given Joe’s post, I’d offer just one tweak, and ask, Why an online/open-access journal? There’s no question that it should offer real scholarship, carefully vetted, but there’s no reason contributors should wait 18 months from ms submission to publication, and there’s also no reason to deal with the logistics of outsourcing the printing, covering costs of that via subscriptions, and so on. (In other words, to give the question “Why an online/open-access journal?” short answers, we could give it essentially two: responsiveness to would-be contributors, and dissemination to a [potentially] wide readership.)

That said, maybe we could try conjuring thing itself. What would it be called? What would a call for submissions look like? What design issues could/would we need to consider?

I’d also like to ask if more sustained discussion invites a slightly different context — like a collective blog or a group wiki.

[Philip A. Pecorino]

I do not mean to act against this initiative only to particapte in the discussion of what this is to be. I mentioned to George that I knew of a journal that was focused on the use of technology in education and now I add that information here. In thinking whether or not this journal is to be confined to CUNY or opened to the entire world we need to add to the list of journals that address similar concerns: MERLOT’s
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching aka JOLT
at http://jolt.merlot.org/
“The objectives of JOLT are to:
Enable faculty to use technology effectively in online teaching and learning by learning from a community of researchers and scholars;
Enable academic programs to design and deploy academic technology to optimize online teaching and learning;
Build a community around the research and scholarly use of multimedia educational resources for online teaching and learning.
JOLT welcomes papers on all aspects of online learning and teaching. Topics may include, but are not limited to: learning theory and the use of multimedia to improve online learning; instructional design theory and application; online learning and teaching initiatives; use of technology in online education; innovative online learning and teaching practices.”

[George Otte]

I am of course aware of JOLT, which has been around for half a decade now — though not as long as similarly focused journals like JALN. Were we to focus just on online teaching and learning (I had suggested a focus on teaching and learning with technology, not quite the same thing), I daresay there would be room for another journal that does that. But Joe has suggested making the journal CUNY-focused, which would be another distinction.

In any case, I think both JOLT’s acronymic title and the link to the call for submissions (to say nothing of the lists of current and past articles) offer considerable food for thought as we think about what our journal might be called — and might call for. Thanks, Phil.

[Joseph Ugoretz]

Thanks, George, for the “why open access” questions/answers. Those are important points, and I fully agree.

As for the focus and differentiation from other similar journals, I do think that a CUNY focus is one way to give us a unique (and valuable, I think) perspective and role.

Beyond that, I would definitely feel that we do not want to be limited to just SoTL about online teaching. I would go broader…in fact, I wonder if we really should be limiting ourselves to just SoTLt (with that last ‘t’ meaning “technology”). I’m certainly as aware and enthusiastic as anyone about the ways that technology can enhance/improve or even revolutionize teaching and learning, but I’m also aware that, really, it’s sometimes an artificial or unnecessary distinction.

Teaching and learning with technology is really mainly about teaching and learning, and sometimes when you add the “with technology” it can be distracting or distancing for some faculty. “Oh, that technology stuff. I can’t really deal with that. I hate powerpoint.”

I’m sure we’ll have plenty of work on technology, and of course we should be open to that. Mostly innovative teaching and learning happens with the most innovative tools–that’s the nature of things–but it’s the innovation, not so much the tools, that I think we should be focused on–both for authors/submissions and for audience.

I’m willing to be persuaded out of this if others think that a tight technology focus will have other good and productive results, but my initial thought is that a CUNY SoTL Journal (maybe a CUNY Innovative SoTL Journal–I’m not great with clever titles or acronyms, but we do need one. And I do like JOLT!) will be the best direction.

[George Otte]

Well, it has been a couple of months, so I am trying to re-ignite this discussion about starting an open access online journal in/for/by CUNY. I’ve just done a pretty long blog post about it, so here I’ll just say that I am trying to get interested parties together in the not-too-distant (Sept. 2nd, to be precise), and I’ve set up a Doodle poll to determine the best times (and also to allow people who can’t make that date but want to stay connected to leave a comment).

Here’s the URL for the Doodle poll:
http://www.doodle.com/a7yvbnm625f76itk

Please respond if you’re at all interested.

[George Otte]

I just sent an email reminder that includes all the respondents as well as some people who aren’t members of this group (and tells all the date, time, and place) originally posted on 8/30), but I did say I would post news here as well.

So, again, a meeting on starting an online open access journal for CUNY will be held in the President’s Conference Room (Rm 8201 at the Grad Center) starting at 1:00 today. I hope to see many of you there and will post notes of the meeting to all.

For those of you who are realizing this is something you’ve already heard a couple of times, consider it a message from your Department of Redundancy Department. (Anyone remember Firesign Theater?)

[George Otte]

Notes from the 9/2/10 meeting on a possible online journal for CUNY

In attendance: Steve Brier (GC), Karen Greenberg (Hunter), Victoria Mondelli (BMCC), Tony Picciano (GC), Steve Powers (BCC), Maura Smale (NYCCT), Barbara Walters (KCC/SPS), Scott Voth (QC), George Otte (SPS/Central OAA).

I can say, now that it’s over, that I’m impressed by our apparent progress. I think this meeting got us a lot further than I thought it could. Of course, so much depends on how accurate that impression is, and how well it resonates with the number of people who wanted to attend but couldn’t make the agreed-upon time (reached on admittedly short notice).

I circulated some material on OJS (Open Journal Systems of the Public Knowledge Project) and LOCKSS (“Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe” — open-source software/ support for web-published “stuff”), the point of which is that we have the infrastructural wherewithal. We just need the will and the way.

We talked for some time about the question of focus – the fact that there are other journals out there, some with missions overlapping with each other and what we might do. This isn’t a bar to moving forward, at least not any more than launching a newspaper in the old days meant that you had to be the only in town.

Increasingly, consensus coalesced around the idea that the journal should be just that – a journal (and not a blog or repository). For it to be a worthwhile publication venue, especially for the many recently hired faculty in CUNY, it would need to be refereed – to have clear and high standards, a procedure for passing muster in getting published, an editorial board that commands some respect.

In some sense, that becomes more important than a refinement of focus and purpose: identify those people, and the rest can be handled inductively: the journal becomes the kind of journal those people represent, the call for submissions an articulation of the kind of things they’d deem publishable.

That’s too easy, of course, but one thing makes it easier: as we thought about timetable issues, we realized that the great grist to this mill would come from the upcoming CUNY IT Conference(s). Those presentations that seemed especially interesting could be invited to publish, as could recent presentations and discussions such as those held at the Digital University conference, this summer’s AAEEBL conference, the previous CUNY IT Conference, and other (especially local) conferences and presentations and faculty development events. Focusing on the lowest-hanging fruit, we realized that having a nascent board and a working name for the journal by December (when the December 3rd and especially the December 14th events would take place) – in other words, being able to approach presenters with the suggestion that they submit to a journal we could name to them and tell them where and how to submit to it –would probably make possible a publication, at least in formation, by the end of the academic year.

I do not want to give the impression that the discussion was a rush for the easy way out. Much of the discussion focused on how to make the journal truly innovative and distinctive, partly by selecting the best of the best of CUNY, partly by using the online medium for potential dialogue with and about who/what is published, partly by avoiding simply instantiating the forms and procedures of academic journals as they have evolved (or failed to), with exquisitely mysterious review processes and endless waits for news of acceptance (or not) and publication (or not).

It would be interesting, for instance, to identify especially promising practices and kinds of inquiry, then offer provisional acceptances or invitations that would come with the option to work out the final form in relative transparency, with reviewers offering suggestions and commentary to authors who could pose their own questions or float their own options. Something more formative than the traditional double-blind review and a good deal less secretive and inscrutable might be a draw as well as an innovation.

That’s as it may be. The important thing is that we have some immediate next steps. We need prospective participants who could form a review board, ideally one that would be pretty wide-ranging in campus and disciplinary representation. People should not only consider volunteering but also think about “volunteering” others (by which I mean reaching out to them about this, sounding them out). Especially brave souls should think about the possibility of heading up the venture as (co-)editor(s).

We also spent some time experimenting with names – reasons for and against the inclusion of certain terms, the possibility of suggestive or nonsensical acronyms, and so on. Rather than review that discussion here, it might be best to create a list of possibilities, especially given the prospects that might pose for productive recombinations. Scott Voth, Wiki Wrangler for the CUNY Academic Commons, may get back to us with a link and a way to do this.

I hope I have captured at least some of the high points of a long and productive conversation. I hope those who were there correct, qualify, and elaborate it, and I hope those who couldn’t make it will interrogate and extend it. But I reiterate my initial impression: that, given a core group to act on some very preliminary crystallizations from this meeting, we have hopes of seeing an online journal for CUNY coming into being this academic year.

[Stephen Powers]

I am writing this before I review George’s notes.
To the question of are we technology focused; I think we are, but I do not think putting it into the title is wise. I think that 10-15 years ago we might not have used “technology” in a title, and maybe in 5-10 years there may be a new word/term. My position, and I agree a list or blog in order to brainstorm is a good idea, is that words like CUNY, innovation, pedagogy, teaching/learning, etc are good bets for being around. Digital, technology, online, etc. are potentially ephemeral.
Should we be about all subjects or focused on an area? All subjects. Which I think will make the composition of an Editorial Board most unmanageable. I’ll get to that issue a little later, but I think that we have to look to accept submission from all walks of CUNY. We have some unbelievably gifted and talented students, in particular at the Grad Center and Macauley, but at other campuses as well. We have unquestionably one of the greatest research and teaching faculty on the planet – to negate any area would be an error. The number (50% hired in the last 5 years) means that there is a lot of research going on for tenure and more to come for promotion(s). So all areas.
The idea of submitting the accepted, as well as reviewing the non-accepted, CUNY IT conference presentations is a rich start. There are numerous thoughts here:
– do the accepted proposals, once vetted and presented, need to be blind-reviewed in order to be “refereed”? I mean, I know they do; but do they really? These proposals are being reviewed by the “board” you have assembled to review conference proposals. How many hoops would they be asked to jump through, and as Steve Brier pointed, many of the presenters may not “need” to do this.
– as an idea, why not invite the non-accepted proposals to be part of the online / blog / review Tony was presenting. If a proposal did not make the cut, for whatever reason, invite it to be publically reviewed. Then once reviewed (whatever that process would look like) it can go to the Editorial Board for blind review.
– I also think you have a rich source of material in the CAT group. Barbara, Adam, Carl, Ken, etc. – the sub-committee chairs and their committees could “report” and it is a researched piece waiting to be happen – kind of like Six Characters in Search of an Author (it’s not a Fireside reference, but I thought it fit). The work of CAT as a work in progress (alternatives to Bb, e-portfolio system selection and philosophy of use, standards and practices).
– When discussing an Editorial Board (or referees), I think we face an interesting challenge. We need folks who are tech proficient and also folks who are recognized authorities in their subjects. Who has that hybrid career bend that will also be interested in referring? Would the composition of the Board be tech heavy or from the various disciplines? I have no experience in this area other than submitting stuff. But my naive thought would be tech heavy with an expectation that we regularly reach out to the field experts at twenty campuses for blind review. I think that gives our Journal more prestige to have “guest” blind editors on an as-needed basis.
– The suggestion that we incorporate a blog or chat with the authors is great. Maybe a scheduled webinar. The Web 2.0 tools that could be linked (taped interviews, slide shows, recorded demonstrations, games, animations, etc.) is a feature that we should emphasize (tech) but not require (non-tech).
– Are we tied to publication dates? The beauty of online teaching for me is that I can read or see something and get it to students at the moment I see it. They experience something in their fieldwork and can get an immediate response in a Db, blog or e-mail from me or from peers. Why should we be tied to a ‘quarterly’ – why not as pieces are prepared and ready, they roll out? I also agree that a special “issue” built around the IT conference(s) is a solid idea but will we wait for all of the ‘selected’ pieces to be completely prepared before we “publish?” Goes for the junior faculty who now wait “18 months” as you reference. Why wait? we are in the age of immediate digital gratification – let’s roll with it.
– A final area, I think, are we looking at this as a grass-roots bottom-up movement from faculty who are looking to give faculty the opportunity to publish in a refereed journal or are we looking at this as a top-down initiative to further enhance the public awareness of CUNY quality? Yes, I know, both. Like all things, I think there are costs that will soon be discovered (web-space, server maintenance, programmer salary, instructional design, etc.) so I think there has to be some administrative support. At the same time does a top-down thing get support from grass-roots.
– A final suggestion. What about a panel or round-table to discuss these and other journal issues at the tech conference? More or less like the open computer lab to announce the commons.

Sorry to go on so long, just a bunch of ideas that were occurring yesterday and continued until about now.

[Barbara R. Walters, PhD – AKA Barbara Walters Doehrman]

The meeting yesterday was definitely worth the trip into the city even on the Thursday before Labor Day. Like Stephen Powers, many ideas have been jumping around in my head since then. Key will be the journal title and the editorial board. as George notes. Once these decisions are in place, the direction will be set in motion. But I would like to address briefly the last paragraph of Stephen’s post, as well as the initial post by Joe Ugoretz.

Top-down or bottom up is, I think, less the issue than establishing a vision and set of standards through people that reflect CUNY-CAT Best Practices in teaching and learning. Cementing the vision seems like a pretty strong term for this group, but I’m hoping we can get beyond dancing on the wings of the plane during my academic lifetime. What makes a journal a journal – above and beyond all else – is that it publishes “scholarly” works regarded by peers to be a genuine contribution to the field and creates a permanent record of them. Those of us who take what we learned about interactive pedagogy from George, Karen, Tony, Ellen, and Bill B. as our starting point, would probably recoil at submissions that address quicker ways to grade more Blackboard multiple-choice test submissions based on CD’s of recorded lectures – no matter how well-intentioned the article or how innovative the statistical data modeling. It just isn’t part of our vision.

The definition of the journal as a permanent record of scholarship based on a vision – scholarship documenting innovative and effective pedagogical interactions – pushes us into a somewhat conventional structural format even as it allows for innovation through use of the newest and latest in advanced communication technology. In order to attract high quality work, authors need to be able to use their publications for tenure and promotion decisions. This means they need to be able to cite their publications in a somewhat conventional format: Author, Title, Journal Name, Volume, Issue and Page Number – perhaps adding the download date. None of this prevents us from adding an ongoing communication/mentoring feature between editor(s) and authors, or blog commentary features, or blog displays of candidates or rejected articles. [My comment in the meeting about the blogging feature as an automatic Salon des Refusés was a reference to the original Impressionist painters, whose work was rejected by the Academic judges, and their creation of their own venue.] I think we are all hoping our junior peers will avoid the painters’ fate of starvation and rejection until after their deaths, but mostly because we hope the journal will provide an official and high status venue for them to publish their work and that the process will be open and fair.

I will be reaching out to colleagues and transmitting some preliminary thoughts. But I’m kicking-off with a suggested title: CAT-JETS. Everyone can (perhaps) fill in the acronym and the implicit vision.

Enjoy the holiday weekend.

[Barbara R. Walters, PhD – AKA Barbara Walters Doehrman]

Well, my husband says not everyone can fill in the acronym: C.A.T.– J.E.T.S. Committee on Academic Technology — Journal of Effective Teaching Strategies.

[Maura A. Smale (she/her)]

Apologies for taking so long to get these thoughts out of my head and onto this forum. But I’ve been thinking on the meeting and this discussion, and here’s what I’ve got:

– Re: editorial board members — I have ideas about several folks (mostly junior, though not all, and mostly library faculty, though not all) that might be a good fit. Are we at the asking stage yet?

– Can the university provide space to host the journal? Is the OJS installation on the Grad Center’s server a possibility? I think there’s probably enough interest in this project and knowledge of OJS that we should be able to solicit assistance configuring OJS for our specific needs and coming up with a logo fairly easily.

– As far as I’m aware (I published an article last year in a journal that uses OJS), OJS is able to publish both on a rolling basis or as dated issues, and can provide PDFs with page numbers, volume numbers, etc. An extra bonus is that OJS will track download numbers for each article.

– Would it be too bold to suggest a title *without* the word journal in it? I keep thinking about interactive pedagogy — with or without technology, this seems to me like a fitting description of the kind of content the journal will feature. How about simply Interactive Pedagogy? We could append a subtitle, too, maybe A Journal of Best Practices from CUNY?

Best,
Maura