HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
HARVARD LAW SCHOOLC AMBRIDGE · M ASSACHUSETTS · 02138CopyrightXWilliam Fisher1Version 2.3, January 9, 2014CopyrightX is an online course on Copyright Law. It was first offered in the springsemester of 2013. Modified versions will be offered in the spring semesters of 2014 and2015. This document describes and evaluates the 2013 version and outlines plans for the2014 version.I. ContentThe course seeks to provide participants a deep understanding of the copyrightsystem in the United States, a rough understanding of the ways in which the copyrightsystems of other countries differ from that in the U.S., and knowledge of the primary waysin which the systems of all countries are constrained by multilateral treaties.As used in the course, the term “copyright system” encompasses three levels ofmaterial: theory (the arguments, drawn primarily from economics, political theory, andphilosophy, concerning why and how the law should regulate uses of expressive materials);doctrine (the rules currently in force concerning uses of expressive materials and the ways inwhich those rules are typically interpreted and applied); and practice (how those rules affectvarious fields of art, industry, and culture – literature, music, film, photography, journalism,software design, architecture, fashion, comedy, games, and so forth).II. PersonnelSeveral people helped create and run the 2013 version of the course. The core teamconsisted of Nathaniel Levy (Project Manager), Kendra Albert (Head Teaching Fellow), EdPopko (Technical Support Specialist), Professor David Karger of M.I.T. (an expert in bothcomputer science and online pedagogy), and myself. We were assisted by Samantha Earp(Interim Director of HarvardX), Marlon Kuzmick (Associate Director of the Derek BokCenter for Teaching), Amar Ashar (Manager of Special Initiatives for the Berkman Center),and Justin Reich (Richard L. Menschel HarvardX Research Fellow). Last but not least,twenty Harvard Law School students served as teaching fellows and helped plan theventure. In addition to Kendra Albert, they were Ruchi Desai; Ana Enriquez; LaurenHenry; Phil Hill; Ashton Lattimore; Wesley Lewis; Esther Lim; Nathan Lovejoy; AlyssaMartin; Matthew McDonnell; Tom McMahon; Rio Pierce; Jacob Rogers; Rachel Sachs;Charlie Stiernberg; Allison Trzop; Martha Vega Gonzalez; Justin Ward; and HeatherWhitney.212WilliamHale Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard University.The biographies of the teaching fellows are available at http://copyx.org/teaching-fellows/.-1-
A similar team will be responsible for the 2014 version. The core group will includeNathaniel Levy (Project Manager), Ana Enriquez (Head Teaching Fellow), and Ed Popko(Technical Support Specialist).III. FormatThe principal novel characteristics of the original version of CopyrightX were:1. Multiple audiences. The course was presented simultaneously to three audiences:a) 86 students enrolled in a regular course on Copyright Law taught at HarvardLaw School;b) 500 participants (most of them nonlawyers) in an online EdX course, dividedinto twenty 25-person discussion groups, each taught by one of the HarvardLaw School teaching fellows;c) a “satellite” course taught by Sarah Hsia (a Harvard Law School graduate) to25 students who met weekly in Jamaica.2. Hybrid Pedagogy. The course relied on five methods to instruct and engage students:a) weekly lectures (which presented the main sets of rules and policiespertaining to copyright);b) reading assignments (which examined in more depth some of the issuesaddressed in the lectures);c) synchronous Socratic discussions focused on case studies (intended to refinestudents’ understanding of the rules and policies by testing their applicationto real or hypothetical problems);d) asynchronous online discussions (in which students were encouraged toexplore all aspects of the course);e) “special events” (in which invited guests [most of them nonlawyers]discussed the impact of copyright law on their fields of endeavor andresponded to questions from the audiences).The course employed various technologies to make these five kinds of materials available tothe multiple audiences: 3All of the lectures were recorded; the recordings were then posted online, so that themembers of all three audiences could watch them at their convenience prior to theSocratic discussions and could review them prior to taking an exam. The HLSstudents and the members of the Jamaica satellite watched versions of the lecturesposted on YouTube.com, while the EdX students watched versions posted on theEdX platform.All of the reading assignments were also posted online. Most were made available inthree alternative formats: Adobe PDF; Microsoft Word; and H2O (a Web-basedplatform, developed by Jonathan Zittrain and the Berkman Center, for creating,editing, organizing, consuming, and sharing course materials).3For information about H20, see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/h2o.-2-
The Socratic discussions for the Harvard Law School students and the members ofthe Jamaica satellite were conducted in classrooms in traditional face-to-face fashion,whereas the discussions of the 20 EdX “sections” were conducted online (atdifferent times to accommodate students in many time zones) using the “AdobeConnect” conferencing software.4All of the asynchronous discussions were conducted online.Finally, the HLS students attended the “special events” in person, while the EdX andsatellite students participated via a live interactive webcast.A chart, showing the relationships among the audiences and technologies, is set forth inAppendix A.3. Experimentation. The course aspired to enhance knowledge concerning online education.Several pedagogic hypotheses (detailed in the following subsections) underlay the coursedesign, and we sought to gather enough data concerning students’ experiences andperformance to test those hypotheses. In addition, in the EdX component of the course, wedivided the students into four subgroups, which were treated differently along twodimensions:a) Half of the participants (and half of the sections) used what we called the “case-lawcurriculum,” which consisted of an abbreviated version of the set of readingsassigned in the Harvard Law School course.5 The other half used what we called the“global curriculum,” which included fewer judicial opinions, relied more onsummaries of doctrine, and emphasized copyright law in jurisdictions other than theUnited States.6b) Half of the participants (and half of the sections) used the conventional onlinediscussion tool included in the EdX platform to conduct their asynchronousdiscussions. The other half used both the EdX tool and a collaborative web-basedmarkup tool, called “NB,” that had been created by Professor David Karger and histeam at M.I.T.7 The latter enabled participants to annotate the assigned readingmaterials and to conduct focused discussions concerning specific aspects of thosematerials.Our ambition, of course, was to determine which of the alternative approaches in eachdimension was more effective.4. Integration. In two ways, the audiences for the course interlocked. First, students in allthree of the groups participated in the live “special events.” Comments and questions fromthe HLS and EdX students were curated (using the Berkman Center’s “Question Tool”For information about Adobe Connect, see e case-law curriculum is available rightX SyllabusA 2013.htm. The HLS curriculum, ofwhich it is an abridged version, is available right Syllabus 2013.htm.6 The global curriculum is available rightX SyllabusB 2013.htm.7 For additional information concerning NB, see tion-tool.45-3-
software8) and then projected onto screens located behind the featured speaker – enablingevery student to see the comments submitted by the other students.Second, some of the EdX teaching fellows were current students in the Harvard LawSchool course. One of the principal hypotheses underlying the course was that this wouldgenerate pedagogic benefits – most importantly, that the quality and durability of the HLSstudents’ understanding of copyright law would be enhanced by teaching the material toothers.5. Limited Enrollment. Another hypothesis central to the course design was that engagementin small-group discussions of hard problems, guided by a knowledgeable and skilled teacher,is crucial to learning. To make engagement of this sort possible, we limited enrollment inthe EdX course to the number of participants who could be accommodated in 20 discussiongroups – corresponding to the number of HLS students who volunteered to serve asteaching fellows. We admitted 25 persons to each such group, guessing that each groupwould shrink during the semester to roughly 15 – the number often cited as the optimal sizeof a seminar. The result: EdX enrollment was capped at 500.To provide us with the information necessary to make admission decisions, werequired that applicants complete an extensive application, including three short essays. Wereceived over 4100 such applications during the three-week window in which applicationswere being accepted. When evaluating those applications, we looked for manifestations ofintelligence, facility with English, and commitment to completing the course – but we didnot privilege educational attainment or legal knowledge. Instead, we strove to select a classthat would be diverse on many dimensions: gender, country of residence, age, occupation,and interests. We achieved at least the last-mentioned goal. The 500 admitted studentsincluded: 53% men; 47% women929 lawyers; 43 persons with Ph.D.s; 177 persons with Master’s Degrees (notincluding those with Ph.D.s)a spectrum of ages, from 13 to 83291 residents of the United States; 203 residents of other countriesThe 70 countries from which students participated are shown in the map on the followingpage.89See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/question.The applications to the course were not so well balanced. 62% came from men; 38% from women.-4-
6. Open Access to “Content.” Although, as indicated above, access to the course was sharplylimited, access to the course materials was not. All of the recorded lectures, all of thereading assignments, and all of the lecture notes (in the form of two interactive maps) weremade available to the public under Creative Commons “attribution-noncommercialsharealike” licenses.107. Rigor. None of the course materials were simplified or de-tuned to enable the generalpublic to digest them more easily. The recorded lectures were pitched at Harvard Lawstudents, and the case studies were selected and drafted so as to challenge Harvard Lawstudents. Our hope was that they would nevertheless be accessible and engaging for thestudents in the other audiences.8. Autonomy of Teachers. The EdX teaching fellows and Sarah Hsia, the teacher of the satellitecourse, were given broad discretion when determining what and how to teach. They werenot given lesson plans for their discussion sessions. They decided which of the largecatalogue of case studies prepared for the course and which pedagogic techniques would bemost effective for their students. The EdX teaching fellows were told that substantialparticipation in the seminars was essential to pass the course, but they decided how tointerpret and apply that principle for their own groups.9. Evaluation by Examination. Assessing a student’s understanding of copyright law using amultiple-choice test is infeasible. A traditional examination is far from perfect, but it isbetter. Working on that assumption, the course made passage of an examination aprecondition for receipt of a certificate of completion. The Harvard Law School studentswere administered a two-part exam: a three-hour in-class closed-book test, designed todetermine their ability to apply copyright law to a novel set of facts; and an open-book“take-home” exam, designed to test their critical understanding of copyright theory. TheAll of the materials are still available on the current homepage for the course: http://copyx.org. For theterms of the Creative Commons licenses, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/.10-5-
EdX students were administered a single 24-hour “take-home” test that integrated the twocomponents of the HLS test but required students to show somewhat more facility withcopyright law outside the United States. The participants in the Jamaica satellite course didnot take an exam. As a result, they received certificates of participation, but were not eligibleto receive certificates of completion.10. Free. We did not charge for access to the course, access to the course materials,certificates of completion, information concerning performance on the examination, or anyancillary services.IV. AssessmentTo assist us in evaluating the various features of the 2013 course, we gathered severalsorts of data: profiles of all applicants and all admitted students derived from theirapplications for admission;the results of an automated “pretest,” taken by all admitted students, whichwas designed to assess their knowledge of the main features of the copyrightsystem at the outset of the course;attendance records for all of the online seminars and special events;the grades received by the students on the individual questions on the finalexaminations;surveys administered to the EdX students, the Harvard Law School students,and the teaching fellows.We are still analyzing this large body of data. But we are already confident that, overall, theventure was a success. A summary of the key indicators follows.A.Retention and Graduation RatesOne of the respects in which MOOCs have struggled concerns retention of students.In combination, the various features of the EdX component of CopyrightX seem to havegenerated a substantially higher retention rate. Of the 500 admitted students, 277 (55.4%)attended the final meetings of their discussion groups, 307 (61.4%) satisfied the participationrequirements set by the teaching fellows, 247 (49.4%) took the final examination, 195 (39%)passed the examination, and 193 (38.6%) both passed the examination and satisfied theparticipation requirement – and thus received a certificate of completion.More detailed information concerning participation and graduation rates forsubgroups of students can be derived from the following graphs. The first column indicatesthe number of students in each subgroup who accepted our offers of admission. Thesecond through thirteenth column show attendance at each of the 12 weekly Socraticdiscussion sessions. The fourteenth column shows the number of participants who satisfiedthe course-participation requirements set by the teaching fellows. The fifteen and sixteenthcolumns show the number of students who took the exam and the number who passed it.The final column shows the number who received a certificate of completion.-6-
Country of ResidenceAgeHighest Educational Attainment-7-
Some interesting comparisons lurk in these graphs. The following table, forexample, juxtaposes the subgroups that appear in the first and third graph with respect totwo different measures of success: (a) their graduation rates (i.e., the percentage of acceptedstudents who received certificates of completion) and (b) their exam passage rates (i.e., thepercentage of students taking the exam who passed it).U.S.NonU.S.In high FinishedschoolhighschoolIncollegeB.A. M.A. Ph.D. J.D.GraduationRate37% 42%22%27%27%38% 44%42%68%ExamPassage Rate80% 78%66%75%74%75% 82%75%82%Among the fruits of this comparison: U.S. residents and non-U.S. residents do not differmaterially on either dimension; graduation rates rise gradually with educational attainment;but the exam passage rate is remarkably consistent across groups. Finally, the hypothesisthat nonlawyers are both willing and able to master copyright law finds support in thesenumbers.-8-
B. Participant EvaluationsAs indicated above, we administered several surveys to the course participants. Tomaximize the comparability of their responses, whenever possible we used the 5-point scaleemployed in Harvard Law School course evaluations. For most questions, the five optionswere as follows: 1 unsatisfactory; 2 poor; 3 fair; 4 good; 5 excellent. In addition, onmost issues, we asked participants open-ended questions.Overall, CopyrightX was rated highly by all groups. The mean responses of theHarvard Law School students on the two most important course-evaluation questions were: Overall Effectiveness of Teacher: 4.817Overall Effectiveness of Course: 4.661.Charts showing their responses to all of the questions in the official HLS course evaluationand in a supplementary evaluation (in which we solicited their views concerning specificfeatures of the course) are set forth in Appendix B.The responses of the HLS students to open-ended questions were also encouraging.In particular, they were nearly unanimous in their support for the “flipped-classroom”structure and for the organization of the in-class discussions around case studies. The mostfrequent suggestions for improving the course were: better integration of its variouscomponents; and reduction of the length of the lectures or the readings (or an increase in thecredit hours for the course).-9-
The EdX students also gave the course high marks overall:Even more revealing, perhaps, were the EdX students’ responses to the open-endquestion concerning the respects in which they found the course useful. These variedwidely, but overwhelming majority were enthusiastic. Here’s a sample: “This course filled some knowledge gaps for me in a pretty criticalprofessional area. I never could have learned what I did in CopyrightX byreading on my own, attending a workshop, or even watching the lecturevideos independently. It really was the combination of all of the differentmodes, and the sustained focus over time, that pulled everything together forme. Short of auditing (or enrolling in!) an actual law school class, I don't seehow this could have been a better experience.”“I've taken dozens of online courses over the years, this has been by far thebest intellectually, pedagogically, and professionally. It provided a clearchallenge but I believe I've learned a great deal. I will continue to reviewsome of the videos that I'm a little unclear about.”“As a military musician, I felt that participating in the class has help me beable to understand copyright enough to pass on to my superiors about thepotential infringements we may be committing inadvertently. I also have hadgreat discussion about copyright with my co-workers who produce and writemusic of their own.”The Deputy Director of the Customs Intelligence Headquarters in Pakistanwrote: “The course has opened up new dimensions for me. I am moreconfident about my knowledge of Copyright Law and to some extent- 10 -
Intellectual Property Rights. As I work for Pakistan Customs I have beenlooking at our IPR Protection systems with a renewed interest, whichunfortunately are almost non-existent. I hope to contribute meaningfully inthis area now!”“I would like to express my profound gratitude to you for allowing me toparticipate in such engaging and enriching course. The lectures were superband it was a great pleasure to engage in debate and discussion with myteaching fellow and fellow students from around the world with divergentviews and experiences of intellectual property and the underling policygrounds. As a member of the English Bar, it was a real privilege to gain aninsight into the US legal system and I thoroughly enjoyed the comparativeapproach.”A professional composer in Italy wrote: “It has been an incredibleexperience which I am going to remember, not only that, I am going toshape all of my fu
into twenty 25-person discussion groups, each taught by one of the Harvard Law School teaching fellows; c) a “satellite” course taught by Sarah Hsia (a Harvard Law School graduate) to 25 students who met weekly in Jamaica. 2. Hybrid Pedagogy. The course relied on five methods to instruct and engage students:
Life science graduate education at Harvard is comprised of 14 Ph.D. programs of study across four Harvard faculties—Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Dental Medicine. These 14 programs make up the Harvard Integrated Life Sciences (HILS).
Sciences at Harvard University Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Campus Center 1350 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 350 Cambridge, MA 02138 617-495-5315 gsas.harvard.edu Office of Diversity and Minority Affairs minrec@fas.harvard.edu gsas.harvard.edu/diversity Office of Admissions and Financial Aid admiss@fas.harvard.edu gsas.harvard.edu/apply
Harvard Kennedy School Arnold M. Howitt Harvard Kennedy School Philip B. Heymann Harvard Law School April 2014 An earlier version of this white paper provided background for an expert dialogue on lessons learned from the events of the Boston Marathon bombing that was held at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Law & Business, Harvard Law School, and H. Douglas Weaver Professor of Business Law. Harvard Business School. 10.30-10.55h. 13th Lecture "Cross-border Insolvency: the New European Regime". Pedro de Miguel Asensio. Full Professor of Private International Law. UCM. 11.00-12.00h. Round Table. "Latest reforms and tendencies on Insolvency Law".
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University Class of 2018 LEGEND Harvard Buildings Emergency Phones Harvard University Police Department Designated Pathways Harvard Shuttle Bus Stops l e s R i v e r a C h r YOKE ST YMOR E DRIVE BEACON STREET OXFORD ST VENUE CAMBRIDGE STREET KIRKLAND STREET AUBURN STREET VE MEMORIAL
Harvard University Press, 1935) and Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936). Quotes, Founding of Harvard, 168, 449. These works are summarized in Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge: Harvard U
danbjork@fas.harvard.edu HARVARD UNIVERSITY Placement Director: Gita Gopinath GOPINATH@HARVARD.EDU 617-495-8161 Placement Director: Nathan Nunn NNUNN@FAS.HARVARD.EDU 617-496-4958 Graduate Administrator: Brenda Piquet BPIQUET@FAS.HARVARD.EDU 617-495-8927 Office Contact Information Department of Economics
Kuan ebrandin@harvard.edu akuan@fas.harvard.edu Donhee Ham MD B129, MDB132 Dongwan Ha dha@seas.harvard.edu Lene Hau Cruft 112-116 Danny Kim dannykim@seas.harvard.edu Robert Howe 60 Oxford, 312-317,319-321 Paul Loschak loschak@seas.harvard.edu Evelyn Hu McKay 222,226,232 Kathryn Greenberg greenber@fas.harvard.edu
