By Joshua Kim. Have you gotten your head around Apple's iTunes U Course Manager?
Let me explain how I understand Course Manager, as I remain somewhat confused about exactly what this does and how big a deal this platform might be.
What iTunes U Course Manager Is:
- iTunes U Course Manager is a web-based tool that allows anyone with an Apple ID to create "courses" that can be downloaded and synched to the iTunes U iPad app.
- Courses are collections of curricular materials that can be organized around a course narrative, with weeks or modules.
- Curricular content can include documents (pdfs, Office documents), audio and video files.
- Enrollment in courses can be restricted. The maximum enrollment for an educationally affiliated Apple ID logon (faculty or staff) is 1,000 students per class. Non-affiliated courses can have 50 students. This enrollment option is the new feature for courses, and it is important because for the first time it seems possible to deliver class materials (articles, lectures, etc) in a way that is both easy and preserves copyright and intellectual property protections.
- Courses are downloaded from the iTunes U app, which is only available on iOS devices. Course material can be updated by course faculty or course builders, and the updates will sync. 
- When students download a course for the iTunes U app on their iPad they can choose to go through and download the course content (documents, images, audio or video files) to their iPad. The documents can then be read in whatever iPad app desired (such as iBooks), and the class videos land in the video folder. This allows offline consumption of content.
- The courses have additional features, such as "Notes," which give students the ability for the students to create (and share?) notes around the content.
Why iTunesU Course Manager Might Be a Big Deal:
- Courses created in Course Manager and downloaded in the iTunes U app get around the limitation of public or private iTunes U sites. Since it is possible to restrict enrollment (by Apple ID) the course materials are kept private and protected.
- The ability to upload course materials that can be seamlessly delivered to students with iPads solves many of the digital content distribution challenges we face in higher ed - if everyone has an iPad. Curricular content, both documents and rich media, can be delivered to students with iPads without the need to go through a third party publishing platform. These digital course materials can be used by students offline, as long as they download the curriculum when they have a network connection.
- The student experience of consuming curricular content on an iPad looks to be rather elegant. The curricular content, both text and rich media, displays beautifully. This content can be wrapped into a course narrative, with modules and metadata surrounding the materials.
- Courses created with iTunes U Course Manager and delivered through the iTunes U app will not replace the need for a web based learning management system (lms). Rather, the combination of the web based Course Manager and the iTunes U app represents what looks to me like an easy and cheap (Course Manager is free) method to organize and deliver curricular content to mobile devices (as long as they are iOS devices). 
- I wonder if the digital coursepack providers, such as XanEdu and Study.net and AcademicPub, are concerned about this platform? If a university is able to clear the copyright hurdles with the digital content used in a course it seems that they could then deliver this curriculum directly to students, bypassing the coursepack vendor. I still have more questions than answers about how this would work, and I see many limitations of this approach (no paper fulfillment and only iOS), but for institutions with an iPad program this is an approach that will be explored.
There remain a number of challenges to this LMS + Apple Courses model. 
First, each student needs to have an iOS device - and preferably an iPad. Android or other mobile OS users need not apply. Stay within the Apple world and the curricular content consumption experience is great - stray and you are left without options. Apple is smart to make the Course Manager and iTunes U software free, as the ability to easily create a great tablet / mobile experience will push colleges to consider 1-to-1 iPad programs.
The second challenge is that the LMS + Apple Course model separates the consumption of curricular content (on the iOS device) and the production of active learning (via blogs and discussion boards in the LMS). Even if the mobile experience for the major LMS platforms improves dramatically (which I hope), students will still need to go outside of the Apple Course environment. Discussions and formative assessments are separated from curricular content.  
In the future I expect that the features available in Apple iOS Courses will improve. FaceTime seems like a natural addition - so students and instructors could easily jump into a video chat when spending time with the educational content.  Some sort of assessment and survey engine should be a relatively straightforward addition.  Perhaps Apple will add polling, so the iOS Course can be used to complement a face-to-face class.
Despite these challenges, I see the evolving Course Manager and iTunes U Courses as a compelling development.
We have struggled to find a robust way to deliver a combination of text and multimedia curricular content that is organized around a course narrative to mobile devices.
Apple seems to be offering us, or at least those of us fully in the Apple universe, a solution.

By Angela Chen. Several universities have recently tried a new model for delivering textbooks in hopes of saving students money: requiring purchase of e-textbooks and charging students a materials fee to cover the costs. A recent report on some of those pilot projects, however, shows that many students find the e-textbooks “clumsy” and prefer print.
The report is based on a survey conducted this spring of students and faculty at five universities where e-textbook projects were coordinated by Internet2, the high-speed networking group. Students praised the e-books for helping them save money but didn’t like reading on electronic devices. Many of them complained that the e-book platform was hard to navigate. In addition, most professors who responded said that they didn’t use the e-books’ collaborative features, which include the ability to share notes or create links within the text.
The participating universities were Cornell, Indiana University at Bloomington, and the Universities of Minnesota, Virginia, and Wisconsin at Madison. The pilot is the result of a partnership between the institutions, Internet2, McGraw-Hill, and Courseload, an e-book broker. After paying $20,000 each, the participating institutions were provided with the Courseload platform and e-textbooks for up to 1,000 students to use. Each university was individually responsible for training professors and distributing the e-textbooks.
The pilot projects are based on a model pioneered at Indiana University in 2009 by Bradley C. Wheeler, the university’s vice president for information technology. The university buys bulk e-textbooks to distribute to students, who pay a mandatory course-materials fee to cover the costs, with the idea that the university can get a much better rate per book by buying in bulk.
Mr. Wheeler said he still believed in the approach, arguing that complaints about unfamiliarity are normal in any group adopting new technology.
“With technology, many things change with repeated use,” he said. “People have lots of early first impressions as they experience new things, and then over time you start to see things become more mainstream, as the technology improves and skills and even attitudes toward use improve.”
According to the report, students said e-textbooks “somewhat” became part of their learning routine but didn’t help them interact more with classmates or the professor, largely because most people didn’t use the collaborative features. Mr. Wheeler noted that the students of professors who did annotate their e-textbooks reported having a better experience, since “these capabilities make the electronic text much more than just an alternative to a physical book.”
Only 12 percent of students purchased a print copy of the book, Mr. Wheeler said.
The report contains suggestions for institutions trying the approach in the future. These include training professors to take advantage of the digital features and determining a method of evaluating e-textbooks independent of the e-reader platform.
Twenty-four universities—including Dartmouth College, Middlebury College, and Michigan State University—will join the pilot program this fall.

Réforme du Crédit Impôt Recherche (CIR) : L’AFDEL et Syntec Numérique souhaitent que l’innovation dans l’économie numérique soit enfin prise en compte
Source http://www.itrmanager.com
Tandis que le sénateur de l’Essonne Michel Berson vient de remettre à la ministre de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Geneviève Fioraso son rapport d’évaluation sur le CIR, les associations professionnelles du secteur numérique, qui n’ont pas été consultées, expriment leurs attentes sur la réforme annoncée de cet instrument essentiel de leur compétitivité. L’Association Française des Editeurs de Logiciels et Solutions Internet (AFDEL) et la chambre professionnelle Syntec Numérique en appellent ainsi à une meilleure prise en compte de l’économie numérique, encore trop peu éligible au dispositif de Crédit Impôt Recherche (CIR), dans le cadre de sa prochaine réforme, annoncée par le Gouvernement.
L’AFDEL et Syntec Numérique, qui représentent le secteur qui connaît la plus forte intensité sectorielle en R&D selon les dernières évaluations du ministère de l’Industrie (source : DGCIS, juillet 2012), suivent avec la plus grande attention les évolutions des dispositifs de soutien à la R&D comme le CIR et le statut de Jeune Entreprise Innovante (JEI). Si les récentes déclarations de la ministre en charge de l’Economie Numérique Fleur Pellerin à l’Assemblée nationale en faveur du maintien du dispositif, ont rassuré les associations professionnelles, la prochaine Loi de Finances pour 2013 sera observée avec vigilance par les représentants de l’industrie du numérique qui attendent une meilleure prise en compte du périmètre technique du numérique et en particulier de l’édition de logiciels.
Améliorer la pratique du CIR pour les PME
Les professionnels se félicitent que le sénateur Berson mette l’accent sur le remboursement trimestriel du CIR pour les PME, la gestion de la trésorerie étant cruciale pour ces entreprises, notamment en temps de crise. L’établissement d’un dialogue constructif avec l’administration fiscale et le ministère de la recherche par la mise en place dès 2012 d’un protocole précisant les modalités de coopération du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (MESR) avec les directions du contrôle fiscal (DIRCOFI) peut être également salué. Les entreprises du numérique soulèvent en effet régulièrement le risque de contrôle fiscal lié au CIR et les divergences d’interprétations entre experts, notamment dans le numérique. Sur ce point, elles souhaitent une meilleure adéquation entre la qualification des experts et le domaine contrôlé ainsi qu’une procédure d’expertise contradictoire.
Pas d’engagement formel pour un Crédit d’impôt Innovation
S’agissant de la création d’un Crédit d’Impôt Innovation (CII), appelée de leurs vœux par les professionnels du numérique, le rapport ne se prononce pas formellement et demande plus de précisions sur le coût d’un tel dispositif. L’AFDEL et Syntec Numérique tiennent cependant à rappeler la place prépondérante de l’innovation dans la création de valeur dans leur industrie, parallèlement à la R&D stricto sensu.
Ré-équilibrage PME – grands comptes à préciser
Quant à un rééquilibrage du CIR en faveur des PME, l’AFDEL et Syntec Numérique souhaitent souligner que le soutien aux activités de R&D des grandes entreprises avec lesquelles les PME développent de plus en plus de synergies (pôles de compétitivité notamment) demeure indispensable. Le rapport propose en effet de porter le taux du CIR de 30 % à 40 % pour les PME et les ETI indépendantes, et d’instituer un taux de CIR de 20 %, dès le premier euro de dépensés, pour les grandes entreprises. Les organisations rappellent aussi l’attractivité du dispositif vis-à-vis des entreprises étrangères, qui participent au développement de l’écosystème. Pour être efficace, toute mesure en faveur des PME pourrait être utilement complétée par une consolidation des dispositifs de financement du secteur (soutien au capital-risque et capital développement) sur lesquels les organisations expriment également leurs attentes.
L’AFDEL et Syntec Numérique souhaitent donc que les représentants des industries les plus concernées par ces évolutions pressenties soient consultés, notamment dans le cadre de la mission confiée à MM. Pierre Collin et Nicolas Colin sur la fiscalité du numérique.

Le Réseau International Francophone des Etablissements de Formation des Formateurs (RIFEFF) a tenu récemment son 4e Colloque international. Des experts de plus de 30 pays se sont réunis pour discuter et échanger sur: La formation de formateurs et d’enseignants à l’ère du numérique: stratégies politiques et accompagnement pédagogique, du présentiel à l’enseignement à distance.
A l’occasion de ce colloque, le RIFEFF a publié un ouvrage accessible en ligne.
Les nombreuses contributions présentes dans le document sont organisées en fonction de trois sous-thèmes:
1. La formation des formateurs ou des enseignants et le développement des compétences, du présentiel à la distance;
2. L’accompagnement pédagogique à distance par les Hommes, les outils et les dispositifs;
3. L’enseignement à distance, une réelle stratégie de mutualisation et de développement entre établissements et pays.
Consulter l'ouvrage du RIFEFF sur la formation de formateurs à l'ère du numérique.