← Crosstalk: The Meaning of ‘Free’ and ‘Open’; Mobile Presentations

QuickWire: State of Washington Opens Online Library of 42 Open Courses

October 31, 2011, 5:01 pm

Washington State reached a milestone today in its ambitious project to eliminate expensive textbooks by putting together affordable resources for its most popular community-college classes and sharing those materials online. State officials unveiled the “Open Course Library,” which brings together resources for 42 courses. The materials include syllabi, readings, activities, assessments, and textbooks. Anyone can access the courses online. The idea is that in the courses that are part of the project, students would pay no more than $30 for the course content.

This entry was posted in Distance Education, Publishing. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

camierodan

This is such exciting news and a giant leap in terms of making education more accessible for those facing cost barriers. We at the Saylor Foundation are thrilled to have partnered with the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to adapt and expand upon Open Course Library course materials. We’re restructuring these 42 courses into our unique, modular format and making the courses freely available to all via Saylor.org. Courses made possible through this partnership can be found at http://www.saylor.org/sbctc.

Camie Rodan
The Saylor Foundation (www.saylor.org)
josephofoley

The writing is on the wall. Washington State and the Saylor Foundation are certainly in the vanguard. One wonders how long it will be before they are joined by a vast majority of educators and those seeking an education.
parrymarc

Thanks, Camie, for sharing that additional information.
–Marc Parry
rwejd

OK. This is important work, but WHY is it so non-transparent in terms of
download, and use?!? One has to download Angel and/or Common Cartridge formats; one has to translate certain docs via XML structures (there is a transform for that,
but it’s another barrier). Why is the download through Connexions (www.cnx.org). That group still hasn’t figured out IU issues that are YEARS old! Why doesn’t this stuff “JUST WORK”? There
are now thousands of OER materials available on the Internet; why are
they so little used? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s almost impossible to find the really good stuff (most of of it is low-rent content, and poorly designed, to begin with) and it’s a huge to climb the multiple barriers to USE once you find the stuff. This movement has been trudging along for almost a dozen years, maybe longer. Get it together, folks!

If you think I’m kidding, just look at this article in today’s CHE:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/popular-pearson-tutoring-programs-revamp-by-offering-adaptive-learning/33970?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

THAT’s what it’s all about folks! It’s about seamless integration; it’s about assessments; it’s about EASE of use; it’s about knowing how to sell; it’s about service execution to a fare-thee-well. Ironically, as these multimillion dollar OER plays multiply, duplicating each other’s efforts the commercial publishers are 20 steps ahead!

If we get to a place where OER replaces on-campus courses, do you really think that the Pearson’s of the world are not going to have content/courseware that is EASIER to use, of BETTER quality, and priced for volume distribution.

What I see happening here is the OER movement shooting academia in the foot – i.e. “disrupting college”, and leaving the pieces for the private sector to pick up. Be careful what you wish for, ^^^^unless you are going to do it right!!!!!^^^^.

What I see here is barely incremental improvements to problems that have been apparent for more than a decade. This is not something to brag about! Just putting content into archives and making announcements is not where it’s at. It’s not about about a communal group hug! You want success. Look at the BEST commercial products out there and emulate them in terms of quality and ease of use. Nothing else will fly, long term.
tom4cam

Mr. rwejd, you ask for more transparency for Open Course Library materials, but the project has released it’s first 42 openly licensed courses in multiple formats:

(1) IMS Common Course Cartridges which can be imported into most LMSs
(2) ANGEL guest login and file exports, because that is the system we used
(3) HTML via our partners at the Saylor Foundation (http://www.saylor.org/sbctc-saylor-courses). These are still under development, but some are done and I think you’ll agree that they are very user friendly.
(4) iPad App: Just kidding. I made that one up because you asked for something that JUST WORKS.

What else do you want from these materials? Free desk copies? An army of sales reps to temporarily befriend you when it’s time to switch to yet another “new and improved” edition? If that’s all the “value add” that some publishers can bring, I’ll pass.

I keep hearing publishers announce smart courses and adaptive learning (http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/popular-pearson-tutoring-programs-revamp-by-offering-adaptive-learning/33970?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en)
like they invented the idea. I’m glad Knewton is helping Pearson do what they were struggling to do themselves: add new value. Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative has been creating and refining smart courses for years with tremendous, documented results. Open content has a strategic advantage in the smart course game: OER can be quickly adjusted at the point of delivery based on student performance data. No need to wait for the next expensive edition to come down from publishers on high.

The pressure is on the publishers to prove they offer value to faculty and students. Inside Higher Ed’s more in depth article on the Open Course Library (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/01/advocates-say-public-money-open-educational-resources-smart-investment#ixzz1cX6T1a57) points out that textbook savings will exceed $1.2 million for 2011-2012 — just one year — and that’s only counting the students of the faculty who created the first 42 Open Course Library courses. Without even factoring in any other adoptions, the savings realized by these few faculty exceeds the $1.18 million spent to develop the courses. I would say it is the publishers, not the creators of OER, who have some explaining to do.

My name is Tom Caswell, I work for the WA State Board for Community & Technical Colleges, and I helped build the Open Course Library. I guess you’re right, this all comes down to transparency. Say, which publisher group did you say you work for again, Mr. rwejd?
rwejd

Tom,

Does releasing the first 42 openly licensed courses have anything to do with transparency? No. It’s amusing in an ironic way that you should mention an iPad app. Why not? Why doesn’t this stuff “just work” after 12 years and $160M+ invested by Hewlett, Gates, the government and others? Where are the assessment tools? Where are the study guides? How are you going to sustain the currency of this material. Are volunteers going to do it? What about the interoperability of the content? I don’t see it. I went to Connexions for a download and sw the same old interface that’s been there for practically forever. It’s not inviting. It doesn’t “just work”.

I don’t expect free desk copies, and I don’t expect the EOR movement to emulate the overpriced commercial publishers, but for the money spent the quality, accessibility, pure interoperability and sheer compelling nature of content is *missing*.

What do I want from these materials? I want them to look as good as or better than what Wiley or Pearson make. And why not. Why shouldn’t OER materials compete at that level? Currently, they don’t, not by a long shot!

You can mock the commercial publishers about what you perceive as their lack in adaptive learning products, but they are 5 years ahead of anything I see in the OER movement – in quality AND in use.

You mention Carnegie, and their results. How many schools are using this stuff? Where are the adoption numbers. I hear rams about Carnegie’s courses, but don’t know anyone who is using them. I used one of their courses, and found the content very good, but in no way did the entire program measure up against some of the commercially produced programs I’ve used. Why is that?

You say that “Open content has a
strategic advantage in the smart course game: OER can be quickly
adjusted at the point of delivery based on student performance data”. I call “baloney”. Where, in practice, after 12 years of OER is this shown to be a fact? Who is doing the updating? In future, will updating be on the backs of instructors? Will they be paid?

We don’t need the “next expensive edition” as you say – far from it. What we need is content and interoperability that is as good as what we are getting from the commercial publishers. What’s ironic in this is that we KNOW how to create great, compelling content, but the OER machine has failed to do that. Why? You’ve had plenty of time, and please don’t try to sell us on the idea that “we’re gong to get better”, because at present there isn’t even a sustainable business model for OER. Why?

You say “The pressure is on the publishers to prove they offer
value to faculty and students”. That’s right, but let’s not assume because downward pressure on price will compel lower prices for educational content that the advantage is going to go to producers of OER. Why is this the case? Because OER doesn’t have the resources or anywhere near the savvy to create vertically integrated learning solutions, and adapt those solutions to new technologies. THAT’s the reality, long-term.

Sure, OER will create savings. I’m not arguing about that. I am a supporter of OER. What is hugely disappointing is the sheer lack of quality available from OER – quality of content, presentation, interoperability, ease-of-use, currency, accessibility, assessment and other factors that are essential for high quality learning.

You say that commercial publishers “have some explaining to do”? Really? How is it then that OER adoptions are so few? And, how are Inside Higher Ed’s numbers jiving with reality? The latter are making cost saving assumptions on OER vs. NEW book purchases. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the commercial educational publishers are no longer focusing on textbooks! They are focusing on integrated solutions. OER proponents are out of their depth. Why? Because they don’t know how to create and distribute great content as good as commercial publishers! Why are there no serious pubishing professionals running any OER programs? Why are we still bringing people in to manage OER programs who have no educational publishing experience? It’s ridiculous that this situation exists, especially given the money spent on OER – including the $2B promised by the Obama administration.

Mr. Caswell, I wish you and the OER movement well. I am an ardent supporter of OER, but I am greatly disappointed by the outputs of OER, to date. It’s got to be better than it is – WAY better – if OER is going to stand a chance to exceed anywhere near the 25% percent penetration that has been projected by the studies that I’ve seen, to date.

Last, it’s funny to me that you think I work with an educational publisher. I’m an academic, and have been close to the OER movement for some time, as an observer and dedicated user. Thus, my other pet peeve about the OER movement – Like I said above, the OER movement has a FREE template on how to make great content, with all the bells and whistles necessary. That template is the one OER is trying to replace, without the marketing hype (and expense of marketing and other externalities). The OER movement has, instead, eschewed the best editorial and vertically integrated educational content solutions – solutions that have been “staring it in the face”, for years. With respect, might I suggest that the OER movement begin to hire in serious publishing professionals who know what they’re doing, instead of the various OER programs that to this day are “learning on the job”. OER is, as we speak, WAY behind the commercial publishing houses; it’s largely an inbred club that has made itself believe it can have a serious viral impact and replace the commercial model. That is not happening, and it won’t happen, because the commercial publishing houses are no longer (stated above) concentrating on content. That OER is so focused on this “so last year” aspect of educational publishing, proves my point.

The future is about vertical integration of highly transparent learning solutions, and building powerful partnerships that will guarantee sustainability. Mentioned earlier, the great forward irony is that OER is beginning to make a case for disruption of traditional educational systems; I think that’s great, but parallel to that disruption are seriously talented educational publishers who are vertically integrating solutions that are going to blow anything that OER has presented out of the water. OER may bring about an educational cost reduction, and if the soft underfunded underbelly of our educational infrastructure fails, we are going to see massive distributed education plays plays that are priced right, coming from the commercial publishing sector. This is happening as we speak. OER needs to get on its horse and gallop forward, and with due respect, hire a few experienced jockeys who know what they’re doing to help. The real publishing talent is out there – go hire some!…………………………………………………………………..
http://twitter.com/txtbks txtbks

I take your point about OER needing to be competitive with commercial content. However, I think it’s missing the point to demand that OER perfectly mirror what the traditional publishing industry is doing. We’ve seen what that model can produce, and it’s broken – none of what they produce, no matter how “high quality” is going to do anyone any good if students can’t afford it. We need a better way of doing things, and openness is the key.

I reject your statement that OER has had enough time. I joined the OER movement about four years ago, and since then I’ve witnessed consistent change. Before the emphasis was on transforming how course materials are used, but now it has begun to focus on creating materials that are practical for today’s instructors.

You’re right that there’s some OER out there that isn’t as practical or as high quality, but there’s also a lot of really amazing content out there too. Look at Flat World Knowledge (http://www.flatworldknowledge.com), which you’ll be interested to know is run by two former Pearson execs. Their textbooks are made to compete head-to-head with traditional publishers and they’ve gained a wider level of adoption than any other mainstream OER I’m aware of.

Agreed that content is only as good as people can take advantage of it (that goes for traditional publishers too with their high costs!), but it’s not fair to dismiss the contributions of OLI and Washington just because you’ve had trouble accessing it. In CMU’s case, the material is difficult to use because it’s locked behind a (free) login screen, which they require so that they can collect data on specific users to improve the content. But they’re turning around and sharing what they’ve learned to help grantees of the Dept. of Labor workforce training grant program to integrate assessments and adaptive learning (http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/initiative/68-buzz/251-creative-commons-announces-support-program-for-department-of-labor-c3t-grantees) – the kind of stuff Pearson is seeking to do.

In Washington’s case, the materials are hard for you to download because it’s set up to be EASY for instructors in their own system – the system that paid for it – to use. Yes, this isn’t ideal, but the great thing about openness is that others have the right to take the material and improve and redistribute it. As Tom points out, the Saylor Foundation has already done this (http://www.saylor.org/2011/10/sbctc%E2%80%99s-open-course-library-and-the-saylor-foundation/). Also, Washington has already taken steps to change the development process for the next 39 courses to ensure they are easier for others to access (and I’m sure they would be more than happy to walk you through downloading the course to you LMS if you are interested).

And finally, as a matter of pride, I’ll note I’m the person who produced the $1.26 million in estimated savings for Washington’s program, and that figure DOES take into account students who purchase their texts at a discount, or don’t purchase them at all. You’re welcome to view the methodology here: http://www.studentpirgs.org/textbooks/documents/affordable-textbooks-for-wa-students.pdf.
chemistry_guy

HI Tom,

You’ve been “edupunked,” that’s all. RWEJD doesn’t work for the publishers, he is just asking you about your knowledge of the open source, edupunk movement, and you failed that test.

That is not to say you have failed totaly in your efforts! Quite the contrary. RWEJD is simply trying to push you down the openness road a bit further.

So pay heed to that part of his unnecesarily complicated message.
tom4cam

I just logged into http://angel.waol.org on an iPad and a smart phone (username: guest_ocl, password: ocl). It works fine. So I guess the only app you need is the built-in browser.

As Nicole Allen mentioned, we are making significant improvements to how we build our next batch of courses. We are discovering what works for our faculty and saving students millions along the way. We’ll be creating phase 2 course materials using Google Docs, a dedicated YouTube account, and some CMU OLI smart courses thrown in for good measure.

I look forward to your curmudgeonly comments when we release phase 2 in early 2013! Maybe by then someone will have figured out the mystery of who you really are. For now I’m going with the theory that you are a team of 3 lawyers (R, W, E — JD), all posing as an anonymous academic to sew uncertainty and doubt about OER. That would also explain the strange inconsistencies (and sheer volume) of your past comments. Keep on snarking, mystery trio! You’re motivating me to go faster.
karen_sorensen

One question. How accessible (to students with disabilities) are the Open Course Library contents? That to me is where most of the publishers fail. If colleges and universities are required to provide accessible online content, why aren’t more OERs and publisher sites accessible? I hope the Washington State one is. Please let me know. Thanks!
rwejd

Good luck, Mr, Caswell. there’s no snark here, just no-holds-barred criticism that is meant to make OER BETTER. Very few who support the OER movement are willing to put forward hard-hitting constructive criticism. The only criticism that OER usually gets is from the commercial publishers, and it’s not constructive! Inside the OER club, it’s all group hugs; it’s a great movement but it needs to get a lot better. Also, there is a lot if naivete in the OER movement about the “big, bad publishers”. That’s ridiculous. Those publishers create great (bit too expensive!) content. OER has a lot to learn from commercial publishers. I have published two books; one a textbook; the other a trade book; both are very successful. The commercial publishers know what they’re doing. They know how to create a great product for very little cost, far less cost than an open textbook of similar quality (of which there are very few). The problem is they are charging the end user too much for it! That will begin to change as education continues to become more distributed via the Internet. The insularity of the OER movement is what nags at me. I have been to a few conferences and it’s all group hugs instead of serious reality checks. The only person I have heard giving the OER movement a “good talking to” is Jim Shelton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIsU4a-lHwE. I strongly recommend watching this video, unless you were in the room to hear it the first time. Shelton is talking about a future that will largely disrupt established publishing models AND educational institutions. That’s the holy grail, as far as I’m concerned.

Here’s another promising initiative: http://www.iskme.org/media/in_the_news/association-educational-publishers-and-creative-commons-co-lead-learning-resources This is the sort of thing that OER badly needs – inputs from professional publishers. Kudos to CC and Hewlett for driving this.
rwejd

OER had better learn, and fast, that mirroring what the traditional publishers do (in terms of depth and quality of offering) is the only way that OER will survive long term, period.To date, Inferior OER content and content delivery systems have resulted from multiple attempts to reinvent the wheel. Go look at Jim Shelton’s talk, the one I sent to Tom (above). I agree that traditional publishing is broken, but so is traditional education! What traditional education doesn’t seem to get is that OER is it’s own Trojan Horse! Openess IS key; we agree. And, open will eventually disrupt traditional eduction.However, openess (in this case, OER) has to be done right, and as good as or better than commercial products, or it simply won’t fly long term. If you doubt this, go look at what’s happening to a large segment of the open software movement. Open will always be around in education, including OER – but the latter is far to inferior to compete with teh quality and sheer force of depth that commercial publishers bring. And, they will bring it in spades as traditional education structures are once and for all disrupted. It’s about time!Again, look at the Shelton video. OER has spent too much money on duplicate efforts, and projects run by well-meaning people who have no domain knowledge. Why? There’s been too much feeding at the grant trough. Where’s the beef? I dont’ see it, nor do many of my peers who agree with me (some, far more critical of OER than I) .About OER having had enough time to create quality: Anyone can start up a publishing effort; there is no secret to creating great content. Cash is the only barrier. Publishing great books is a skill, a craft; and, sometimes approaches art. Why, to date, is there not even one OER project led by someone with long experience in the commercial publishing sector? Not one. That’s ridiculous, and symptomatic of the inbred nature of the entire OER enterprise.That’s what happens as a result of grant inbreeding and unnecessary demonizing of commercial publishers.Flat World Knowledge: I know one of their authors; he creates great stuff. But Flat World Knowledge (according to him) has been kept at arms length by OER “insiders” from the grant-based world. It has something to do with licensing preferences as I understand it. Tragic, and frankly, dumb. You note that they are run by ex-Pearson people. That’s why the books and delivery systems are first rate! I know two people who use their textbooks – they love them! Their problem is that they don’t own their own destiny; they’re controlled by outside investors; their prices are climbing, but they’re still a bargain over traditional OER, in terms of the price/quality ratio and pure quality of content. Interesting model.You say “it’s not fair to dismiss the
contributions of OLI and Washington just because you’ve had trouble
accessing it.” To date, this is OER’s primary failure – i.e. making assumptions about the user. Here’s a clue; it HAS to “just work”, or people won’t use it!! Unless universities start to mandate the use of inferior OER content simply because it was “invented here”. The proof of my hypothesis is in the pudding – just look at traditional OER adoption numbers vs money spent! Sad. I just went to Flat World Knowledge website and they claim 1600 adoptions. Might that be because their content “just works”? And might it be that their content “just works” because they are PUBLISHERS, and not wannabe publishers? My point is made. Thanks for helping to make it for me. Sorry, I just don’t see any way that disparate OER projects will ever compete on a quality (and eventually, price) basis with people who know what they’re doing. You mention Saylor; they are re-purposing material, most of it is static content. It’s not the future. Maybe when Saylor was wanting to do great things some years ago, but it fizzled out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._SaylorFinally, kudos to your methodology; it looks fairly solid, but note that the courses are goig to be primarily used by those that created them. The creators were paid. Are they going to be paid to keep the materials updated? There is a cost to free. Again I am an ardent supporter of OER; I use open materials in my class, but there are serious structural flaws in funding and resulting performance from over-duplication of effort and non-expert management and oversight of projects that continue to plague OER. This isn’t what OER proponents want to hear, but it’s the truth. Anyway, keep the OER flag flying, but for heaven’s sake do whatever it takes to knock some sense into the OER enterprise and do what it takes to create products that ARE equal to what we see from the commercials. Anything else is kidding ourselves.

Flag
rwejd

Sorry for the formatting (no paragraphs); the formatting was OK on my computer – maybe
it went out through the university servers and got screwed up. And a
note to “chemistry guy”, I’m no ‘edupunk’. I’m merely an insightful critic :)
And, sometimes long notes are good; maybe a few days away from MS/NBC
will free you of your sound-bite-itus. :)
rwejd

Tom, no snark here. Might I suggest you look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIsU4a-lHwE for solid, hard-hitting criticism. OER needs to vastly improve its offerings, open up itself to real innovation, and figure out how to compete with the best. “Good enough” just won’t cut it, long term. OER needs PROFESSIONAL help; help from people who are in or have been in the commercial publishing space. That would be a good start.
rwejd

It’s not missing the point to insist that OER mirror the best commercial offerings; it’s THE point. Unless and until that happens, OER won’t succeed, long term. I’m not a seer, but I will go out on a limb and guarantee that outcome.

Yes, commercial publishing is broken, but so is the traditional academic model. One great irony, mentioned in my last post, but seemingly glossed over, is that OER has opened up the traditional model of education to mass disruption. OER has, in a very real way, created a Trojan Horse for educational disruption. As that disruption evolves, only the VERY BEST educational materials will be put to use. As we speak, OER lacks real vision, and expertise – the kind of expertise that knows how to put good product in front of learners. Why is that? It says something about the culture of OER, and the rather dimwitted demonizing of everything that comes from traditional educational publishers. OER could learn a lot from that expert domain; instead; OER trys to re-invent the wheel, and up until now, rather badly at that.

I am a huge supporter of OER. I use open materials in my class. I am a published author of two books – one textbook, and one trade book. They are both very successful. From direct experience I have seen how a commercial publishing company creates great content for very little cost, relatively speaking. In fact, the best OER examples out there cost WAY more to create than everyday commercial publishing output. Why is that, and why has the movement permitted itself to get into such a structural bind when it comes to being open to exploring the process of content creation spearheaded by commercial publishers?

As far as OER not having had enough time, poppycock! The template for creating great educational content is no mystery; it’s out there. Why doesn’t even one major OER project have a serious ex-commercial-publishing professional at the helm? The hubris and inbred nature of of the OER movement has caused this, and has only itself to blame. Ironically, it seems that the OER movement is “open” to its own, inbred ideas, when successful publishing process templates have been there all along, staring it in the face.

I’m glad that you mention Flat World Knowledge. I know one of their authors. He tells me that Flat World Knowledge is considered an “outsider” by the general OER movement; they’re marginalized; it has something to do with licensing issues. How ridiculous. I just went to their website and noted that they have 1600+ adoptions – in what, 2 years? How does that compare with 12 years of OER? Given the money that has been spent, all one is left to say is “where’s the beef”. Also noted is that Flat World Knowledge was created by publishing PROFESSIONALS. How has that lesson been lost on the OER Chiefs? You have helped me make my point by mentioning Flat World Knowledge. My friend tells me that even Flat World Knowledge has problems, because they are owned by private investors; their prices are climbing, but then, OER costs money, too. I see more innovation coming from that little startup than all of OER, combined, yet they’re marginalized?

As far as what Pearson and other companies are up to, compared to CMU, it’s apples and oranges. The comercial sector is WAY ahead of the curve. Why? Because their market-driven system is OPEN to innovation, and all comers. Not so true of the OER movement, which I find exceedingly inbred, and populated by non-expert-domain players who mostly do not know how to create great (even good) content. Great content will win! This is a lesson of the early web, and the far web. It’s not “good enough” that wins. It’s what people WANT to use because it’s EASY and it does LOTS of stuff for them. That’s what wins.

Incidentally, the Saylor foundation is simply creating static examples of mostly average or below average content, with the occasional exception. As you properly state, the heaviest users in WA State will be those who created the materials. And why not? That’s what happens in the commercial publishing sector, but the latter know how to leverage reviews and market what they learned to create demand. OER doesn’t have a clue about this, and it doesn’t take a ton of sales reps to accomplish, either. You can fill up repositories and c

I looked at your study method – kudos for including non-new books, but keep in mind that the primary users will be those who study under the creators of the content. Why aren’t 1000′s of others adopting this content? Someone told me that one well known OER group has several hundred institutional members, yet adoptions are only in the individual hundreds. what’s up with that?

Will OER creators be willing to keep the content up to date and interoperable. I read where Cable Green has suggested $100K per course per year to keep just ONE book up to date. Can you imagine American academic agreeing to use just one book for English composition. It isn’t going to happen. As American post-secondary eduction continues toward disruption, “seat time” is going to go away. It’s going to take very sophisticated learning “systems” to educate people. I don’t think the OER movement is capable – on its own – of making that happen. Domain expertise is called for, and fast, before more millions are wasted.

OER has accomplished one thing; it has brought the problem of overpriced content into public view, with the bulk of the credit going to Student PIRG. That’s a good thing. However, there really has been a rather large waste, to date, because most of the good content (what there is of it) is so difficult to find, access, keep current, and make sustainable. I hope OER culture gets it together, and finds a way to succeed. It wil need to change certain operational assumptions, and start looking at models that work, instead of reinventing the wheel. Including commercial publishers in the mix wouldn’t be a bad idea, either. Cable Green and Creative Commons have begun just such an initiative, with the help of the Hewlett Foundation. Good for them!
tom4cam

I’ve learned that you can always do something more to make course materials more accessible. That said, all Open Course Library courses have been reviewed by an accessibility specialist, a universal design specialist, a global education specialist, and a Quality Matters-trained Master Reviewer. The learning management system itself came with some inherent accessibility issues. We worked with those constraints, but we are always looking for better tools. Thanks for asking.
tom4cam

I was there. Jim Shelton’s talk was excellent. You’ve made some good points, Robert, although it’s odd to have extended conversations about openness with someone who insists on “Deep Throat-style” anonymity, but I suppose it’s not surprising that you would want to be careful given your position. I don’t think OER should aim to be “as good” as commercial publishers — it should be far better. The Open Course Library team has learned a lot in a year. I can’t wait to show you what we have in store for phase 2. We’ll be ready to compete. May the best book win.
debdessaso

On the one hand, I can see how librarians would bristle at this idea; on the other hand, it’s about what is convenient to students, and hauling around hundreds books is certainly NOT a convenience!