What is the most feasible workflow processfor collecting, using and disseminating community college Open Textbooks?

Planned Workflow Process Basis

• Collaboration and sharing

• Breadth

• Depth

• Open and unrestricted use

• Universal accessibility

• Institutional buy-in

Open Textbook Adoption Tasks• Locate and categorize suitable open content

– Topics by top courses that represent 80% of enrollments– Reading level– Depth and scope

• Evaluate– Quality– Accessibility– Cultural relevance– Currency– Authority– Articulation

• Customize, Remix, and Organize– Interoperability– Accessibility– License type– Cultural relevance

• Disseminate in print and digital formats – Student (DIY) for production of open textbook– Campus bookstore and/or printshop services for production of open textbook– Proprietary services

Content Review Panel

• Five CCCOER members – Two University of California representatives– Two California State University representatives– Two other experts

• Determine and define the necessary elementsof a model CC Open Textbook– Reading level– Depth and scope – Quality and accuracy– Cultural relevance– Currency– Authority of source

Technical Panel

• Interoperability standards

• Content dissemination processes

• Accessibility

Possible Workflow Roles(Adapted from eduCommons)

• Producer– Person(s) in charge of putting most of the course content into Inventory– Can check how many CCOT are in Producer workflow status

• QA– First person to determine the quality of a CCOT– In charge of making sure the links work and that the site conforms to certain

standards• Reviewer

– Second person to determine the quality of a CCOT – Usually the Reviewer is a faculty member

• Publisher– Final person to inspect a CCOT and moves it to

public view• Administrator

– Can perform the functions of every role– Can add new users

• Viewer– Can perform no function; can only view contents– Cannot alter objects or move them through the work flow

Workflow Summary

• Locate and collect open content• Vet the content

– Quality• Depth, breadth, cultural relevancy, authority of source, etc.

– Technical• Accessibility, interoperability, etc.

• Prepare open content for CC use– Customize, organize, localize, convert for

accessibility, interoperability

• Provide publication and dissemination options

Workflow

Stage 1: Coordinate Panels

Stage 2: Collect Content

Stage 3: Vet Content

Stage 4: Disseminate Content

Proposed

Stage 1

• Staff – Select and invite

Content Panel members

– Select and invite Technical Panel members

– Coordinate communications and meetings for Panels

Stage 2: Staff

• Staff – Identify and prioritize CCOT content needs,

based on courses that represent 80% of enrollments

• Planning project - only Mathematics: Statistics– Invite community college faculty to

recommend, submit and/or develop OT for Open Textbook Project

– Locate CCOT– Verify that the open license

of the CCOT is modifiable (if not, seek permission from author)

Stage 2: Panels

• Content Panel – Set criteria for CCOT minimum standards– Develop a set of searchable identifiers for

CCOT (e.g., metatags, discipline, reading level, year of development, author, etc.)

• Technical Panel – Set criteria for CCOT

minimum standards

Stage 2: Community

• Open Textbook Project Community Volunteers and others – Develop and contribute

CCOT that meet minimum content and technical standards (esp. accessibility)

Stage 3: Staff• Staff

– Assign a tracking number to each CCOT and enters basic info about the CCOT into Inventory database

– Post CCOT with ratings of below minimum standards to Open Textbook Project Community Volunteers for revision

– Convert CCOT to meet interoperability minimum standards– Add CCOT with rating of “exceeds” or

“meets” minimum standards to Inventory as a link to original source or as file

• Inventory based on eduCommons model

– Archive “canonical” snapshot of the CCOT for a given course for articulation purposes

Stage 3: Panels

• Content Panel – Assign searchable identifiers to CCOT– Rate CCOT by criteria

• Technical Panel – Rate CCOT by criteria

Stage 4: Faculty & Students

• Faculty – Select CCOT for use in actual courses– Disseminate CCOT to students via download

access from the Inventory for DIY student printing, campus services, or proprietary services

• Faculty and students – Rate CCOT after use in an actual course– Ratings posted to Inventory automatically

Proposed Timeline

Stage 1: Coordinate Panels

Stage 2: Collect Content

Stage 3: Vet Content

Stage 4: Disseminate Content

Proposed Licensing

Proposed Workflow for Campuses

• Form Taskforce on campus to address adoption of open textbooks– Curriculum approval– Pedagogical standards– Articulation– Tech support– Bookstore and print shop services – Library– Faculty and department participation– Faculty training in development of OER– Marketing

Proposed Workflow for Campuses

• Foster community of educators who will use and contribute to open content appropriate for use as textbook at community colleges

– Educate campus community about OER and open textbooks

– Provide model Board policies about OER

– Provide model tenure and promotionincentives for faculty to participate in OER

– Provide guide for development and implementation of campus Taskforce to address adoption of open textbooks

What Sustainability and

Business Models

are most viable for the

Community College

OpenTextbook Project?

Sustainability

• Unique sustainability challenges of open educational resource projects

• Must find a way to sustain– Production and sharing of

open educational resources– Use and reuse of their open

educational resources by end users

“Sustainability is more than funding models.”

~ S. Downes ~

• Quality processes• Technical• Openness, access

and licenses• Staffing• Workflow• Maintenance

Sustainability• Explore the viability of institutional

and/or student use fees

• Examine the relationship and cost-models for Connexion’s digital university press and the campus

• Bookstores and Printshops as point-of-purchase centers

• Identify sources of operating support from states, institutions, foundations and other complementary organizations

Sustainability and Business Models

Cathedral vs. BazaarConnexions

Breshears’ OpenTextbook Business ModelDownes’ OER funding models

Dholakia’s OER revenue modelsStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy model

FOSS ApproachOthers?