The universe of postsecondary education is expanding. It is an era of rapid demographic and labor market changes, increased competition and shifts in institutional form (e.g., the rise of for profit degree granters, the hybrid form of nonprofit/for profit partnerships, corporate universities), and new forms of delivery driven by emerging technologies. In nearly all of these cases, the pace of innovation and establishment of new institutional forms outstrips the ability of regulators or policy makers to stay ahead of the curve.

To better understand the complex interplay of public policy drivers regulating e-learning, the Center for Studies in Higher Education convened a meeting of experts in February 2006 for a preliminary examination of existing and emerging public policies that will shape its regulation both domestically and internationally. Three white papers were used as a point of departure for the discussions, which focused on the following areas: The Changing Regulatory Environment: Who, What, Why, and Where?; Finance, Investment, and the Flow of Capital; Student Access and Equity; Social Costs and Benefits from an International Perspective; and Consumer Protection and Cross-border Education. This report summarizes our conversations and recommendations for future research.

This Educause Quarterly article draws on an in-depth study of humanities and social science (H/SS) faculty and their attitudes about use and nonuse of digital resources in teaching undergraduates. It explores in some detail faculty attitudes about digital resources use in teaching environments. It also summarizes the larger research we conducted on the universe of digital resources available to undergraduate educators in a subset of users in H/SS and suggests how understanding use, users, and nonusers might benefit the integration of these resources into scholarly environments.

This report presents five thickly-described interdisciplinary case studies that explore academic value systems as they influence publishing behavior and attitudes of University of California, Berkeley faculty. The case studies are based on direct interviews with relevant stakeholders -- faculty, advancement reviewers, librarians, and editors -- in five fields: chemical engineering, anthropology, law and economics, English-language literature, and biostatistics. The results of the study strongly confirm the vital role of peer review in faculty attitudes and actual publishing behavior. There is much more experimentation, however, with regard to means of in-progress communication, where single means of publication and communication are not fixed so deeply in values and tradition as they are for final, archival publication. We conclude that approaches that try to "move" faculty and deeply embedded value systems directly toward new forms of archival, "final" publication are destined largely to failure in the short-term. From our perspective, a more promising route is to (1) examine the needs of scholarly researchers for both final and in-progress communications, and (2) determine how those needs are likely to influence future scenarios in a range of disciplinary areas.

The Center for Studies in Higher Education, with generous funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is conducting research to understand the needs and desires of faculty for inprogress scholarly communication (i.e., forms of communication employed as research is being executed) as well as archival publication. In the interest of developing a deeper understanding of how and why scholars do what they do to advance their fields, as well as their careers, our approach focuses in fine-grained analyses of faculty values and behaviors throughout the scholarly communication lifecycle, including sharing, collaborating, publishing, and engaging with the public. Well into our second year, we have posted a draft interim report describing some of our early results and impressions ased on the responses of more than 150 interviewees in the fields of astrophysics, archaeology, biology, economics, history, music, and political science.

Our work to date has confirmed the important impact of disciplinary culture and tradition on many scholarly communication habits. These traditions may override the perceived "opportunities" afforded by new technologies, including those falling into the Web 2.0 category. As we have listened to our diverse informants, as well as followed closely the prognostications about the likely future of scholarly communication, we note that it is absolutely imperative to be precise about terms. That includes being clear about what is meant by "open access" publishing (i.e., using preprint or postprint servers for scholarship published in prestigious outlets versus publishing in new, untested open access journals, or the more casual individual posting of working papers, blogs, and other non-peer-reviewed work). Our research suggests that enthusiasm for technology development and adoption should not be conflated with the hard reality of tenure and promotion requirements (including the needs and goals of final archival publication) in highly competitive professional environments.

A "build it and they will come" approach to many university digitization initiatives has precluded systematic investigations of the demand for these resources. Those who fund and develop digital resources have identified the general lack of knowledge about the level and quality of their use in educational settings as pressing concerns. This full report describes our research and the complete results of a large 2-year study. The purpose of our research was (1) to map the universe of digital resources available to a subset of undergraduate educators in the humanities and social sciences, and (2) to investigate how and if available digital resources are actually being used in undergraduate teaching environments. We employed multiple methods, including surveys and focus groups. Our definition of digital resources was intentionally broad and included rich media objects (e.g., maps, video, images, etc.) as well as text.

With the advent of electronic publishing, the scholarly communication landscape at universities has become increasingly diverse. Multiple stakeholders including university presses, libraries, and central IT departments are challenged by the increasing volume and the rapidity of production of these new forms of publication in an environment of economic uncertainties. As a response to these increasing pressures, as well as the recent publication of important reports and papers on the topic, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) convened a meeting of experts titled, The University as Publisher. The event was sponsored as part of the A.W. Mellon Foundation-funded Future of Scholarly Communication project at CSHE.

Our goal was to explore among stakeholders -- faculty, publishers, CIOs, librarians, and researchers -- the implications of the academic community, in some structure, taking over many, if not all, aspects of scholarly publishing. Two themes were the focus of the public panels: Institutional Roles in Evaluation, Quality Assessment, and Selection and Structuring and Budgeting Models for Publishing within the University Community. Our discussions included the importance of distinguishing between informal dissemination and formal publishing and the challenges that each presents to the university community. The harsh economic realities of high-quality formal scholarly publication, not least of which are managing peer review and editorial processes, were emphasized. Understanding disciplinary needs was cited as paramount throughout the discussions; the needs and traditions of scholars in the sciences and humanities, as well as among myriad disciplines, will likely demand different dissemination and publishing models and solutions. An additional theme that emerged was acknowledging the diverse forms electronic dissemination takes in the academy and the need to foster a spectrum of alternatives in publication forms, business models, and the peer review process. Budgetary and academic freedom concerns were explored as well. Regarding the expensive infrastructure required for electronic dissemination and publishing, it was agreed that there is enormous duplication among the university press, IT, and the library.

We give an overview of the Physics Educational Technology (PhET) project to research and develop web-based interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The design philosophy, simulation development and testing process, and range of available simulations are described. The highlights of PhET research on simulation design and effectiveness in a variety of educational settings are provided. This work has shown that a well-designed interactive simulation can be an engaging and effective tool for learning physics.

We give an overview of the Physics Educational Technology (PhET) project to research and develop web-based interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The design philosophy, simulation development and testing process, and range of available simulations are described. The highlights of PhET research on simulation design and effectiveness in a variety of educational settings are provided. This work has shown that a well-designed interactive simulation can be an engaging and effective tool for learning physics.