Years ago, I wrote about the intimidation factor about “data hungry” models for simulations and decision-making cases. Here, we had projects that involved the uses of massive amounts of information and digital imagery. I ripped through a proprietary repository of some 30,000 images and still had troubles finding imagery for particular concepts…and the simulation piece was a small part of the larger automated learning experience.

Well, I’m having a sense of déjà vu again, albeit with Web 2.0 and social technologies.

A Website

First is one website that uses user-generated imagery, audio files, and video as well as articles and literature—to create a sense of camaraderie and community, to strengthen the protective factors against suicide in university students. This site is not even a year old, and it has sopped up enormous amounts of energy and effort for the creation of digital contents. And this is with a wide public creating and uploading contents…and endeavors to have contests to solicit and bring in more contents. This is with various talented faculty, staff, and students creating contents for deployment on the site.

The challenge is that “fresh” is quickly dissipated. A person who is a savvy information consumer can probably rip through the site’s contents in maybe a couple days maximum. And with the huge range of users and potential needs, people can hit the far limits of the site’s contents in a short time.

Recently, I went trekking around campus with a digital camera to capture images both inside and outside of buildings. I went around for two days and ended up with maybe about 200 images…most of which could be used. Some were for a forthcoming contest. The rest went online and live and we bought time, maybe for another month. And that’s on a much slower cycle than most people who run websites.

And a Wiki

Another project, a wiki, captures e-learning research, practices, and tools, to support those working in the field. This one has fairly high standards for information. The data has to be cited. Images, audio, video, and slideshows may be uploaded as well.

This project has captured a fair amount of global attention, and with that, the contents also seem to date out fairly quickly. The changes to the technologies mean that there is a need for constant updating. The public is voracious. Not having sufficient contents is a little like having insufficient food at a party.

The professor spear-heading this project has been working to change the academic culture around publishing on a wiki to make it respectable...but he is absolutely fighting an uphill battle in terms of asking faculty to potentially spill protected ideas before they formally publish. Virtually no one will do that.

A Faster Digital Contents Cycle

The challenges here have to do with the constant cycle of information development and deployment. This digital information has to be tailored. It has to be logical. It has to be researched. It has to be engaging. It has to be multi-medial. It has to be original. It has to be engaging. Much information now has to be packaged—with the video connected to a transcript and to a learning assignment and to a self-assessment and maybe slideshows. And those who develop multimedia know how much work goes into every piece.

One healthy limit on this cycle is the budget aspect—which requires that the instructional design and content creation work be paid. The unhealthy non-limit is when a project never was budgeted and is funded out of goodwill, which actually also does have its limits. Deadline-based, funded projects always get first priority. And then the goodwill work that is “fun” and that aligns with my other projects and presentations then get attention. I’m not sure if there’s any practical or better way of approaching this. (And yes, I have done everything I can to encourage community members to not only partake of the contents but to actually create contents, too! And that’s so far been a fairly tough proposition, with a few loyal friends and a few professional colleagues contributing.)