EDUCAUSE | Open Source and CMS

Blackboard Customers Consider Alternatives

ckeller — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:57:32 -0500

Open-source software for course management poses market challenge.

Moving to Moodle: Reflections Two Years Later

ckeller — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:26:32 -0500

Adopting an open source learning management system combined benefits and challenges, with lessons for change management.

A Bridge Between Blackboard and Open Source?

ckeller — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:57:22 -0500

"Blackboard, the dominant player in course management software, has the ability to inspire devotion and, for the more fervid open-source adherents, not a little contempt. So today’s announcement may cause a stir among those more apt to liken Blackboard to the devil than a gentle giant: The company is partnering with Syracuse University to develop a way to integrate Blackboard with Sakai, one of the primary open-source alternatives."

Large-Scale Open Source E-Learning Systems at Open University UK

gdobbin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:25:04 -0500

This ECAR research bulletin examines the factors leading to the selection of the open source learning management system at the Open University, details the many aspects of development work that had to be undertaken, and describes the issues involved for institutions participating in an open source community. It also looks at some of the many business and cultural challenges the institution has faced, and at how faculty are being encouraged to move toward a model of education incorporating increasing amounts of e-learning content and activity.

Ccitation for this work: Sclater, Niall. “Large-Scale Open Source E-Learning Systems at Open University UK” (Research Bulletin, Issue 12). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Dynamics of Supporting Sakai Through Local and Global Collaboration

gdobbin — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:06:36 -0500

This ECAR research bulletin discusses the adjustments that the Indiana University information technology organization made, and continues to make, in order to support membership in Sakai. It has been said that supporting Sakai can seem like trying to change a tire on a moving car. As co-founder of and active participant in the Sakai collaboration, the effects of IU’s decision—the unexpected, the challenging, and the delightful—are discussed in terms of the intra- and interuniversity realities of highly collaborative efforts.

Citation for this work: Goodrum, David, Jan R. Holloway, Anastasia S. Morrone, Lance Speelmon, and Elizabeth A. Van Gordon. “Dynamics of Supporting Sakai Through Local and Global Collaboration” (Research Bulletin, Issue 11). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Open Source Software in Education

elilly — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:02:16 -0500

Academia has adopted open source software for some online learning initiatives because it addresses persistent technical challenges

An Open Source LMS for a Mission-Critical, Enterprise-Level Application: Are We There Yet?

drupal — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:00:25 -0500

The open source learning management system has gradually reached maturity. In this session, we will share ideas and lessons learned about making open source LMS enterprise-ready. Currently SFSU has one of the largest Moodle installations in the United States and is the sole university hosting an anonymous Moodle CVS server.

An Outsourced Open Source LMS and a Pot of Gold?

drupal — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:14:58 -0500

Like many WebCT campuses, SUNY Delhi must select a new LMS and complete migrating to the new system in the next year. The total cost of ownership comparison led us to adopt a remotely hosted open source solution. We'll examine the facts, figures, and progress of moving from WebCT to Moodle and integrating with Banner.

Critical Factors in Selecting a Course Management System for Higher Education in Ghana

ckeller — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:02:15 -0600

Emerging technologies for higher educational delivery has provided integrated software applications that have the ability to support both instructors and students. The effect of these technologies is the result of increase students enrollment in most institutions in developed countries as the emphasis on educational delivery has shifted from the traditional classroom face-to-face to more blended learning. Faced with the challenge of high enrolment, institutions and organizations in developed economies have been working on strategic plans to implement online education (Kim & Bonk, 2006). In the case of higher institutions in Ghana, though some infrastructure has been built, these have not been fully integrated to support collaboration, assessment, feedback, students learning and lecture preparation and presentation. Analysing the influence of technology in developing countries, the future of higher educational delivery in the next 10 years would be the use of Course Management Systems (CMS) which is currently driving the educational delivery of most institutions in the developed countries, creating a digital divide. It is therefore crucial to identify factors that would inform the good choice of such a system that would meet the needs of higher education in Ghana.

The 2007 Campus Computing Survey

drupal — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:39:00 -0600

Begun in 1990, the Campus Computing Project is the largest continuing study of the role of computing, e-learning, and information technology in American higher education. The session will present the results of the 2007 Campus Computing Survey, including new data on P2P policies, open source deployment, IT security issues, strategic and financial planning for IT, instructional integration of IT, campus IT standards, course management systems, and Web site services.

Implementing, Supporting, and Maintaining Sakai

drupal — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:42:40 -0500

Learn how Indiana University has successfully implemented the world's largest installation of the Sakai open source collaborative learning environment on eight campuses statewide. This presentation will cover migration from an enterprise legacy system, tiered support model, virtualized hardware solutions, source code management techniques, and balancing local needs with community-driven development.

The quest for sustainability in open courseware

pault — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:43:27 -0500

I've been reflecting recently on the subject of open courseware and, more specifically, OpenCourseWare following the keynote for the Sakai conference in Amsterdam delivered confidently and enthusiastically by Hal Abelson (a podcast is available). In this post I'll briefly recap some of the core aspects as I understand them and then go on to explore this area, based on personal experiences and ideas I've been formulating at Oxford.

Abelson took a broad view, inviting the audience to go back 25 years and defined programming as a "novel formal medium for expressing ideas." Against that, he got us to consider the aspirations and expectations that we might have had then, encapsulating this in 3 predictions for 25 years thence (i.e. today):

a global encyclopaedia
TCP/IP global
collaborative educational resources

It's the third that has yet to be properly delivered. Starting from consideration of why not, he then developed the rationale leading to the MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) initiative and the more recent Creative Commons Learn (ccLearn).

Abelson described OCW and ccLearn as means to building infrastructure for sharing academic pursuits, covering platforms and materials in Sakai, policy structure and media structure, designed in such a way as to protect academic values. The need to beware certain kinds of commercial activities was drilled into the audience: such concerns are, he argued, keen on monopolising and overcharging us. So, in the face of impending monopoly, it was argued that we need OCW, shared repositories etc, in order to be taken seriously at national and international levels. The IPR issue highlights a tension between the commercial and academic world. He urged everyone that we shouldn't leave it to the publishers to control, and by way of illustration mentioned that universities can have a policy on publication that insists on the right to retain rights and publishers should be sought that allow reasonable IPR.

Enter Creative Commons' ccLearn:

Our goal is to make material more "interoperable," to speed up the virtuous cycle of use, experimentation and reuse, to spread the word about the value of open educational content, and to change the culture of repositories to one focused on "helping build a usable network of content worldwide" rather than "helping build the stuff on our site.

It's new to me and one month on I've subsequently tried to find out more. I certainly haven't searched far, but ccLearn still seems largely hidden, with little information available: someone who hears about it might well type cclearn in Google and would find cclearn.com, the 'Center for Creative Learning,' which has also taken the domain cclearn.org. I found it difficult to come across much of substance regarding ccLearn - just a few snippets, e.g. a mention on Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. Of course, as it's a Creative Commons project, you could go to the creativecommons.org site, but when I entered cclearn site:creativecommons.org in Google only one match was returned! At least it informs us that they now have an Executive Director - Ahrash N. Bissell - congratulations to him :-)

The presentation itself flowed swiftly with ease until ... there was a big anticlimax at the end when the economic realities became evident - in Q&A at the end he admitted that the average cost of preparing an MIT course the OCW way is around $15,000-$20,000, mainly down to legal concerns apparently.

Indeed in a subsequent session, 'Open courseware, pedagogy , Social Practices and Tools,' which elaborated on OCW initiatives, major problems with the current OCW were identified:

too expensive to create OCW sites
little or no automation
no connection to CLE
only large institutional commitment can get OCW off the ground

OCW is a meritorious activity and undoubtedly makes a major contribution to making more visible the academic enterprise - the Webometrics 'World University Rankings' provide some indication of this with MIT sitting on top of the table (whereas Oxford lies many places beneath). It can be argued that these are very limited measures, but Web visibility really does count.

Given that it's worthwhile, but costly, how might there be economic sustainability? One might look for inspiration to open source software (OSS) generally and follow the example of seeking revenue from support, certification etc., but I expect this has already been covered. More specific to the educational context, the Open courseware session expressed the hope that the next generation of OCW, dubbed OCW2, will reduce cost by employing graduate students, trained to understand licensing, and enabling them to share in the academic sphere. To enable this, they are looking at incentive structures, trying to get early buy in. The graduate helpers are called Digital Scribes whose engagement can work positively to foster "co-creation" and "communities," but I think graduates may well swap and change how they earn enough to get by, so can't always be depended on. We also heard that from another point of view, OCW may be regarded as filling out the long tail of publishing (a phrase coined by Chris Anderson), as illustrated by Amazon, which is able to sell at least one copy of every book, no matter how obscure, thus offering a chance to support specialisms (J.R. Hartley would be pleased!) and I guess Lulu is another good illustration. However, overall, I'm not convinced this will be much better.

So what would this small person from a small island suggest as an alternative approach?

Allow me to start with a quote from one of last year's extraordinary debates on the governance of Oxford University. It comes from Donald Fraser, Professor of Earth Sciences, who as reported in proceedings from Congregation , 14 November, 2006 stated:

Dynamic knowledge-based businesses are moving away from large, centrally administered monoliths, towards small, self-organising entrepreneurial cells, flexibly connected and practically self determining—just look at the campus models of companies like 3M, Google and Apple.

What does that mean to me as someone who works in academic support? The message I read (and readily agree with) is that academics rather than administrators are the ones who, along with their colleagues and peers, are in the best position to determine what they should do with their academic activities - in terms of how it can help them, their department, their field of study and their students. In the context of the debate as a whole, he was arguing against the motion because it contained proposals that were seen as increasing central control over the academics in ways that would threaten their independence and autonomy. From this, I infer that essentially that academic endeavour starts internally and is facilitated by an inter-networking mode of operation. If you look at the origin and flow of ideas, it often starts wthin one individual, spreads to a group and then more widely. It's a fact not just of research, but of teaching and of any other activity. Institutions need to support this as best they can, particularly as individuals are becoming increasingly mobile, moving from one institution to another.

This view of academic freedom doesn't deny the institution and its overall mission, but it does ask for a light touch, in terms of how academic enterprise is directed and also in terms of general bureacracy, particularly the legal aspects. I guess this is one of the major issues of OCW and I wonder if OCW2 really lessens this. I think a basic lesson to take from the governance debate (I'm not sure I could grapple with many of the subtleties) is that we should seek first to clarify principles: the professor is the academic authority who should drive the decision-making subject to the authorisation of the institution. In order for this to work effectively, the authorisation should be devolved, which is actually the traditional way in which Oxford works. If it's not suitably devolved, then you get a lot of overhead, so that institutional approval becomes necessary for very small steps, making things very expensive.

Such a devolved view can then transfer much of the responsibility to individuals, requring them to focus especially on basically two main issues:

appropriate use of content that you haven't produced yourself
deciding on the rights you wish to grant to content you have produced

If these issues are addressed as early as possible in the course creation lifecycle - by determining what's needed in the way of permissions and what should be granted in the way of rights - then that should save a lot of resources later on. With the right training, by the time materials are published the first time in a course management system, the main licensing issues and policy should already be resolved so that when it comes to making available as open courseware, the main effort is technical. This is dependent, I think, on authorisation at the highest level established as early as possible, ideally at the outset, so that it is quickly devolved. The kinds of authorisation I have in mind is a policy document on the kinds of licensing that are permitted, how the University is identified with each publication, specifically giving academic members the rights to publish according to Creative Commons licenses subject to various terms and conditions. Gaining authorisation itself may not be easy, though, as the institution will likely require strong arguments as to the benefits of making content free to use and repurpose - ICT staff may already have had a taste of this in trying to persuade their institutions to let them release software under an open source license.

Assuming processes can be put in place, what does this mean for implementation?

The OCW presentations I've attended have conveyed the sense that OCW is a long way from just open educational content - I certainly got that impression from the Educause '06 presentation Open Sharing, Global Benefits - The OCW consortium where open educational resources - were defined in terms of digitised materials offered freely and openly to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research; whereas open courseware are specific kind of educational resource materials, which have to be organised around a course, though the duration is open. There's a lot of emphasis on process and, in particular, OCW requires that content must be IP-cleared: every contribution gets passed through and checked - sometimes it is removed or replaced where it is felt that copyright has not been granted on at least some content. When I stepped back to reflect on openness in open courseware, I could see quite a few severe hurdles to surmount, some of which seemed unnecessary. Such a heavyweight approach has led to some consideration of sustainability in terms of a few institutions managing the processes, hosting OCW content, and selling this as a service: Wolfgang Greller sees this is an opportunity for OpenLearn, the OU's version of OCW.

However, I have reservations about the hosting provision at such institutional level through third parties and, in any case, my view is that we are dealing essentially with another output, one that results from existing internal processes to which most resources have already been devoted. Rather, institutional ownership can be expressed naturally through their own LMS, which can provide many organisational benefits, not least a single point of access to all study resources for students and for external examiners. However, If we are to support academics individually as originators of content, then the LMS system needs to support personalisation, a flexible environment in which to organise and publish. Indeed, I feel that the way Oxford is run in a devolved and self-organising way points to more organic and sustainable means that make sense particularly with the host of Web2.0 technologies are available. Hence, I now feel more confident that an LMS can provide valid linkage between personalisation and open courseware, as intimated in my poster at last year's conference in Dallas.

I think we should try to envision how it would work for an academic. I imagine a Professor accessing a LMS and going straight to their personal area, in which they have inter alia options to create, review and share content. For Oxford users it means using MyWebLearn, which makes available all the tools necessary to author a course. Sharing the material can be carried out literally in a few steps:

Log in.
Go to the resource you wish to make public
Click on the link 'View Access' at the bottom of the page.
In the following page go to the pull-down menu 'Allow..' and select 'Public' to 'look at' this page.
Click on the [Add] button to enact.

This simple mechanism has already been used to some extent in WebLearn, evident in Google with a few thousand resources (pages) indexed compared with fewer than a hundred pages from another institutional VLE with the same name! However, this process only enables the materials to be put in the open. From the academic's perspective, there needs to be added to this the means for specifying the licensing. Assuming a suitable policy and process were in place, then options could easily be added. Overall it needs to be very easy to use, ideally as easy as contributing to a blog.

On the other side of the coin, materials published this way as courses need to satisfy certain organisational and structural requirements - the content should be sourced from departmental areas, which need to be planned and designed into the system. Also, to be discoverable they need to be indexed with suitable metadata; and interfaces need to be provided that pull together all the relevant information in a meaningful way. We can achieve this by mapping to institutional structures, e.g. the LMS can automatically insert meta data about department, so that subsequently presenting the courses on offer as a whole, can be achieved by aggregation, say. Here I think we can learn from Warwick blogs, an institutional blog hosting service in which staff and students are able to write freely and connect with others. However, they have linked in with their institutional NDS LDAP directory, so that you can browse blogs based on department and even module of study. WebLearn already uses the institutional map in that it is hierarchical in structure, with the top two levels controlled centrally as far as departments and colleges. However, once at that level, areas are managed locally, i.e. content creation has been decrentralised, allowing natural growth.

The issue of quality control should already be handled in the processes of preparing the courses at the institution; what is being provided is largely a snapshot of the materials that were used in live courses. Whatever the processes, I think it is important that the decisions about releasing such content are devolved as much as possible and that the mechanisms for effecting it are as easy as the illustration above. I understand that for OCW(2) processes are being developed for Sakai to make publication a smoother process, so perhaps the production of Creative Commons licensed content may be an option in future, though I wonder how devolved it is and whether it revolves around MyWorkspace. Also, until Sakai has hierarchy, in comparison the technicalities of generating such materials appear far easier in Bodington (and I suspect developing pipeline processes to go with them might be easier also).

If another editorial layer is needed, then that can emerge from peer networks. A number of years ago I came across the Hippias search engine, a service (now merged with Noesis) that as I recall had an editorial board of experts in Philosophy whose members each maintained their own Web sites. These sites contained links to other sites and the Hippias search engine would index all the pages at the end of these links, thereby building a trusted indexed collection. I think it's a very apposite illustration of how you can combine devolved human quality control with automation.

This is obviously work in progress and much is still open to debate, but from the view I've described above, I think the focus should very much be with the academics, devolving much of the decision-making and supporting them as appropriate. Technically, this means Web2.0-like approaches should be incorporated and so I expect many elements of ccLearn could play a major role in facilitating institution-oriented OCW.

I hope to talk more about personalisation and Web 2.0 in future posts...

CMC and Whitman: Migration to Sakai and Beyond

drupal — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:00:11 -0500

Claremont McKenna College aims to migrate hundreds of courses and over 150 active instructors from WebCT to Sakai within a year. Whitman College has successfully completed its yearlong pilot and conversion from Blackboard to Sakai. Both schools have worked closely with faculty volunteers and have developed tools to address technical migration issues. The schools will share the different stages of their implementations, methods used, challenges, and successes.

Blackboard Makes a Pledge

drupal — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:47:54 -0600

"After months of criticism that its patent policies had the potential to squelch important education projects, Blackboard on Thursday announced a "patent pledge" under which it vowed not to assert its patent rights to sue open source projects or home-grown software used by colleges and universities."

Education Software Firm OKs Open-source Patent Use

drupal — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:09:03 -0600

"Blackboard, whose software can be used to manage university courses, has taken a significant step to mollify open-source rivals who perceive a patent threat from the company."

Open-source Group Wants Educational Patent Reversed

drupal — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:48:59 -0600

"A legal center is trying to overturn a patent it says threatens three open-source educational projects, a sign of the tension between patent holders and the collaborative programming community."

Blackboard Patents Challenged

drupal — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:36:48 -0600

"Open source group asked U.S. to revoke rights asserted by software giant. Sides trade charges on why compromise talks collapsed."

Is There an OpenCourseWare Site in Your Future?

drupal — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:56:42 -0500

Do you want a site like MIT's OpenCourseWare site, but don't have millions of dollars to spend? Come learn how to start an OpenCourseWare project. Topics will include moving existing materials from closed learning management systems into an open-access format using eduCommons, gaining faculty and institutional support, and dealing with intellectual property.

Open to Open Source

drupal — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:44:14 -0600

Open source software has found a permanent home on some college campuses. But according to a study released on March 1, 2006, by the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, open source products, which enable programmers to modify code and customize programs, have yet to reach the masses of academe.

Closer to the Dream: Letting Pedagogy Transform Learning Management Systems

drupal — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:34:32 -0600

Three small liberal arts colleges (Luther, St. Olaf, and Macalester) share their diverse approaches in implementing Moodle, an open-source learning management system (LMS). Using the seven elements for successful LMS transformation, they show how a learning system designed, supported, and enhanced by instructors can result in a pedagogically rich online learning environment.

.LRN: An Enterprise Open-Source Learning Management System

drupal — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:34:30 -0600

.LRN is one of the largest international open-source projects in educational technology innovation. Backed by the .LRN Consortium, its "out-of-the-box" core capabilities include enterprise integration, course management, learning management, content management, and online community support. This presentation will demonstrate the product and describe the governance process for ongoing development.

Blackboard vs....

drupal — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:16:31 -0500

Some higher education officials are wondering if in buying WebCT, did course-management giant wipe out the competition, or is open source the real competition?

At the End of the Day We Will Have Given It All Away: The Convergence of Open-Source CMS and Open Courseware

drupal — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:13:13 -0500

Modeled on the MIT Open Courseware Initiative, the Foothill-De Anza Community College District has founded Sofia (Sharing of Free Intellectual Assets), an effort that will publish open courseware for community colleges using the Sakai open source software. This session will report on the goals of Sofia and opportunities for collaboration.

Support Directions for Open Source Course Management Systems: Liberal Arts Colleges and the Sakai Project

drupal — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:41:36 -0500

The idea of course management systems intrigues many small liberal arts colleges, but commercial solutions may be too expensive. Do open source products like Michigan's CHEF or Stanford's CourseWork offer a solution? Ohio liberal arts colleges, including Denison University, are piloting these systems, and the Midwest Instructional Technology Center ran CHEF in support of courses at Earlham College. Presenters will show how such systems work for liberal arts colleges and how Michigan, Stanford, and other institutions developing course management systems are joining forces in the Sakai Project for a closer alignment of their environments. The Sakai Project will also address issues of support for these open source systems.

MIT OpenCourseWare: A New Model for Open Sharing

drupal — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:18:45 -0600

MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) makes MIT faculty's course materials available free on the Web to any user, anywhere. With the publication of 500 subjects in September 2003, MIT is delivering on the promise of MIT OCW and open sharing. The initiative is already advancing education at MIT and making a difference for educators and self-learners around the world.

Course Management Systems in Perspective: A Conversation with Carl Berger

drupal — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:33:35 -0500

Syllabus advisory board member Judith V. Boettcher interviews Carl Berger, a veteran in the field of instructional technology, about course management systems. Dr. Berger explains how CHEF, the University of Michigan's open source effort, serves as a "framework" for developers.

MIT OpenCourseWare: A New Model for Open Sharing

drupal — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:50:17 -0500

MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) makes the MIT faculty's course materials available on the Web free, to any user, anywhere. With the publication of 500 subjects in September 2003, MIT is delivering on the promise of MIT OCW and open sharing. The initiative is already advancing education at MIT and making a difference for educators and self-learners around the world.

Creating Open Source: Issues, Processes, and Promises from Stanford's CourseWork CMS

drupal — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:24:00 -0500

CourseWork's goals included the creation of a framework to support modular learning tools developed by many schools and understanding and developing better distribution, peer, and technical support models for systems that are affordable, supportable, and easy to integrate into campus systems. This presentation will focus on what we have learned and what is still needed.

Navigo Project: An OKI Course Management Assessment Engine

drupal — Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:42:55 -0500

We will outline the collaborative efforts of Indiana University, University of Michigan, and Stanford University to develop a next-generation assessment engine based on the OKI programming interfaces. Learn how these efforts will enhance these institutions' course management systems and deliver a modular implementation that can be leveraged by any institution.

The Open Knowledge Initiative

drupal — Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:31:45 -0600

The Open Knowledge Initiative presents an open specification for the development of educational applications and course management environments. This session will introduce the OKI architecture through the demonstration of systems and tools, including MIT's Stellar and Stanford University's CourseWork.

An Open Source Model for Academic Content Dissemination and Pedagogical Collaboration: An Oxymoron or Just Impossible?

drupal — Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:13:09 -0500

Good pedagogical applications develop when stimulated by sharing teaching and learning experiments and assessed critically in open discussion. The OpenCourseWare project exposes the aspects of teaching, material selection, and content sequencing to the world. This presentation shares the work done to date on building, assessing, and supporting MIT courses presented by OCW.

Looking for Snake Eyes: Risk Takers' Secrets of Success

drupal — Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:16:35 -0500

Some schools elect the "road not taken" in IT solutions. Whether abandoning Microsoft, building an OKI course-management system, or implementing an open source portal, the less-traveled path has its reasons, rewards, risks, and requirements. Share experiences with adventuresome others and discuss how to succeed in such a venture.

The Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI)

drupal — Wed, 30 May 2001 15:30:06 -0500

The Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) addresses what is perceived by many in higher education as a critical need: meaningful, coherent, modular, easy-to-use, web-based environments for assembling, delivering and accessing educational resources and activities. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and its primary partner, Stanford University, are lead planners in the OKI Project. The initiative is sponsored by a generous grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.