Yet another sustainability model... I don't know how many of you saw this article posted in Campus Technology today. Mind you, this is kind of a special case sustainability model since it was initially funded with student money (some kind of tuition rebate). Maybe there are some lessons for us here, however: the value of involving students & the value of out-&-out rewards for faculty who make an effort towards OER adoption to replace textbooks.
Posts made by Gina Bennett
Hey Clint, that is SLICK!!! Just about a perfect way of introducing that additonal information, I would say.
Hi Mary, hi everybody
I've been reading over the Sustainability document provided... some intriguing models here & I think whoever came up with these certainly did a thoughtful job. After thinking about these models, I have a few comments/reactions:
Model 1: Funded Centralized Coordination - I like this one & feel it could provide a pretty high-quality textbook. But I don't hold much hope for it. We have been participating for almost 10 years with the OPDF projects & yet it's my suspicion that cross-institutional adoption of the OERs produced has been very low.
Model 2: Centralized/Decentralized Hybrid - this one's a bit fuzzy & vague. Also the mention that 'BCcampus will provide technical support' sounds a bit scary. I'm thinking these texts should be EASY to update; any technical support required should be minimal.
Model 3: Cost Recovery - I'm sure as heck not morally opposed to this one but I think it would result in a shaky basis for sustainability. Depending on how this model was applied, texts with a small subscription would never get enough funding to merit attention. And I'm guessing that over time students will be less & less likely to 'need' a print-based copy.
Model 4: Sponsorship - Again; I don't see any ethical problems with this one & I've seen how this *can* work... although I have no idea how much funding can be generated this way.
Model 5: Institutional Sponsorship - not very likely! It's been my experience that smaller ('sending') institutions tend to adopt the texts supported by the bigger ('receiving') institutions. I agree with the original author's observation that 'sufficient resources may not be dedicated to produce high quality texts' & 'If the initiative were not prioritized, it could die on the vine.'
Model 6: Subject matter Group Ownership -- this one I feel has the best chance for survival. If an articulation committee 'owns' the resource, members are more likely to buy in to the project & adopt the text. Articulation committees have a history of getting together to agree on curriculum; I think agreeing on text content would not be so conceptually different a task. Doing the actual WORK of maintaining the text would probably still require an input of funds; perhaps equivalent to what we historically have been getting via OPDF? (or is this overly optimistic?)
Thanks Clint. I'm glad to hear that the 'reviewed' identifier will be added to the list of books in the future. I do understand that these things take time.
Yeah, I think I understand now how the display of 10 per page thing works. Thanks!
hi Mary (& others)
I've been reading through the documents (thanks for these Mary!) & I do have a few questions...
First, I have a few questions related to the "Find Open Textbooks" front-end for the database of textbooks we are accumulating in this project. What I wanted to do was to browse the 12 reviewed texts mentioned in the Narrative document. So I went to this website & saw that there are 28 available results but I wasn't able to find a way to display all 28 results: the most I can display at any one time is 10. Am I doing something wrong? Also ... is there some way to tell ahead of time whether or not a listed text has a review available for it?
Also, I'm surprised that there has been so little interest in the adaptation phase of the project. Does anyone have any ideas as to WHY the uptake has been so poor? Do we have any feedback from the faculty who reviewed the original batch of texts: what was the process like for them?