Tag Archives: OhioLINK

Digital Textbooks and Open Educational Resources – Summary of SOCHE Think TV session

On Tuesday, May 3rd I recorded a 15 minute segment for the Southwestern Ohio Council for Higher Education on Think TV, the local public television station in Dayton, Ohio.  My topic was the rise of digital textbooks and options available for students and faculty to access and produce textbooks and learning materials.  Below is a snapshot of my general comments with links to various sources for more information.

Our current textbook system is broken.  We have arrived at $200 textbooks and have students who cannot afford them.  As a result, students try to borrow a textbook from the library or a friend (sometimes the older edition), purchase a used one, or go without.  Neither of these options provides revenue to the publisher, thus resulting in higher price points in an effort to recover the costs or production.   What can we do about this catch 22? Continue reading

OhioLINK receives $750,000 EDUCAUSE grant for multimedia course material

OhioLINK has been named a recipient of a $750,000 grant from Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC), a new initiative focused on identifying and scaling technology-enabled approaches to dramatically improve college readiness and completion, especially for low-income young adults. OhioLINK’s winning project will build off of its successful Ohio Digital Bookshelf program by creating multimedia and self-assessment tools to help students succeed in fundamental math and applied engineering courses. OhioLINK’s proposal was one of 29 recipients chosen out of 600 pre-proposals and 50 finalists. Continue reading

The Ohio Digital Bookshelf, webinar summary

The Ohio Digital Bookshelf, Where will the 2nd Year Take Us?  A Webinar from the University System of Ohio TeachU, Presented by Stephen R. Acker, Research Director, The Ohio Digital Bookshelf

The slides for the webinar are available on slideshare and the webinar archive.

The following is a summary of my interpretation of the webinar.  My best efforts were made to ensure accuracy.

Affordability, engagement and preparedness are the 3 big factors that influence student success in college.  For many of higher education faculty, admistrators, and policy creators years ago, these were mutually reinforcing- “poverty” as a teaching associate led to more campus-based activity and greater preparedness through grading, lecturing, and the like. Now, higher costs for education and lack of related income-generating opportunities for students, drives students off campus and takes time they would better be spending on study. We need to concentrate on affordability if we’re to bring campus engagement and preparedness back into reasons for successrather than reasons for failure for today’s student, who lives in a much different world. Continue reading

The Future of Academic Reading – BGSU Discussion

Today I attended a discussion at Bowling Green State University on the future of academic reading.  It was a day long session involving a panel discussion of students and faculty, along with Amy Pawlowski, the Web Applications Manager at the Cleveland Public Library and myself as respondents.

The panelists were mostly upper-class and graduate students, and several faculty/administrators using a variety of devices and tools to read books. Below is a summary of the comments from the panelists.  Consider this a snapshot of individuals, each offering a slightly different perspective on eReading, but with many commonalities.

Some interesting quotes from panelists and audience members:

“I didn’t want my fundamental reading experience to change.  I didn’t want my book to tell me I had email.”

“I covet my print books, I don’t like to break the spine on them.”

“Someone told me to get a nook because I could share my books, why would I want to share?”

“After the students [3rd graders] read books on the iPad, they wanted to keep reading.”

In addition to my summary below of the morning session,  BGSU representatives blogged the discussions.  Those can be found here:

Continue reading

Charleston Conference – eBook Archiving

Yesterday, I joined a panel of publishers, aggregators, and archiving agencies to discuss the issue of eBook archiving.  I had to set the stage for libraries, which was quite easy – we are in fear of losing our content to which we no longer have control of since it is housed on someone else’s server in another part of the country/world.  How do we guarantee that the content we purchased will remain accessible to us and our end users? We need to work on a solution….and fast.

Rebecca Seger from Oxford University Press presented the publishers perspective, highlighting things OUP has done, and challenges facing publishers.

  • OUP has journals archiving in place with portico, CLOCKSS, and LOCKSS.  OUP’s first trigger event happened in 2009.  Their policy is publicly available on the OUP site.
  • Ebook archiving at OUP is done via publisher archiving and a dark archive.  They keep a repository in PDF format.  But, OUP cannot archive the proprietary versions created by the aggregator partners like ebrary, EBL, Ingram, EBSCO.
  • OUP feels the obligation to preserve the Oxford Scholarship Online version for library customers.  They also offer the option of providing XML data to purchaser for local archiving (as she described was being done at OhioLINK.)
  • Some challenges:  Archiving options are limited for ebooks as not everything available for journals is available for ebooks, yet.  Additionally, defining the trigger events has proven to be much more difficult. Continue reading

Mad World of eBooks – part three, ALA Discussion

See parts one and two of this session for more information.  The session was described by one of the speakers as “speed dating for eBooks”- evaluating the relationships between libraries, publishers, vendors.  Best thing I heard all day.

Group three – Becky Clark, Johns Hopkins, Alex Holzman, Temple UP, Rob Kairis and Kay Downey, OhioLINK Continue reading

Mad World of eBooks, part two – ALA discussion

For the introductory material on the session, please see part one of this blog post.

Second group – Lenny Allen, OUP, Erin Igoe, Cambridge UP, Tony Horava, OCUL, Joy Kirchner, COPPUL

  • Lenny – budget and workflow are concerns, always looking a year in advance.
  • Erin – CBO general ebook platform focused on perpetual access of titles; forthcoming developments – digital collections from Cambridge Libary, New Cambridge history of Islam; discussing the best use of delivering print materials in a digital format that will be most useful, relevant and user friendly.  Always looking at discoverability and functionality, they really want to be at the simultaneous release of p and e, it’s the workflow issue that is holding things up.  Lots of opportunities for ILL, PDA, metadata (better and more consistent fashion), use reports. Suggests that librarians keep pushing the envelope with publishers. Continue reading

Mad World of eBooks part one – ALA discussion

On Saturday morning at ALA, a group of librarians and publishers gathered together to discuss the world of eBooks, particularly aspects of consortial purchasing.  Each hour of the discussion a panel of publishers and librarians was on hand to lead the discussion.

The event was organized by Michael Zeoli at YBP, Julie Gammon at the University of Akron, and Tony Horava at OCUL.  Michael began the event with general slides about eBook and print book availability and sales.  He also offered a few anonymous comments from librarians.  I’ll try to get copies of his slides to post. Continue reading

Google Book Search Settlement

Posting on behalf of Peter Murray, OhioLINK, full post at:  http://dltj.org/article/gbs-summary/

Today was to be the deadline for objecting to, opting out of, and/or filing briefs with the court on the Google Book Search Settlement. That was the plan, at least, when the preliminary approval statement from the court was issued last year. That deadline changed, and that is part of a recent flurry of activity surrounding the proposed Settlement. In honor of the original deadline, this e-mail provides a summary of recent news and an index of documents that you might want to read for more information. Continue reading

Reference Publishers Debate Single Platform

On the Friday of the ALAMW Conference, the Independent Reference Publishers Group met for a panel presentation/discussion on using one single platform to host all reference content.  It was an interesting discussion.  I’ve summarized the panel in my notes below.

Independent Reference Publishers Group Meeting

Friday, January 23, 2009

Representatives from the following organizations were in attendance: Choice, CQ Press, Omnigraphics, Sharpe, ifactory, Sage, Salem, Neal Schumann, ABC-CLIO, Rosen, Credo Reference, Serials Solutions, NISO, Booklist, CHOICE, Wright State University.

The theme of this meeting and panel discussion was instituting a single platform for electronic reference content. Sue Polanka from WSU started things off with her wish list and each publisher had a chance to respond.

Sue Polanka – Wright State University

One day I’d like to purchase/license all of my reference content, regardless of publisher, and load it on the platform of my choice for the best cross searching available. This platform could be an existing one, like GVRL, Credo, ebrary, EBL, NetLibrary, etc. or some shareware, something developed by libraries. Benefits to patrons and librarians include: Greater access, more content, single search interface for ease of use and discoverabilty, easy to implement in library instruction and on web sites. These systems need to have unlimited simultaneous use, 24/7 access, with no DRM or other restrictions on downloading or printing, the most multimedia available during today’s expensive economic times and an actual ebook price, up front, would be appreciated.

Todd Carpenter – NISO

One platform has barriers to interoperability and they are bigger than technological, as in political and economic. [barriers shouldn’t prevent us from trying to do this. IRPG would be a good venue to discuss this. Seems like publishers would want to do this for reasons of – more exposure, and less cost of producing pricey interfaces – has anyone ever heard of epub or the IDPF? SP]

Peter McCracken – Serials Solutions

Federated products are often a starting point for research and therefore have an opportunity to have a reference role. The current design doesn’t work best for the patron since they get mostly articles. Somehow relevance needs to be a factor to assign tags to reference and get them to the top. We need to use field mapping more effectively. [I prefer a pre-indexed approach since federated products tend to be slow. Publishers/aggregators should take advantage of all metadata and tag reference items appropriately. If federated products are used, the reference content should be faceted as “overview material” or “background information.” SP]

Rolf Janke – Sage Reference

Publishers still have an infrastructure that supports print publishing.  The infrastructure is a difficult component to downsize in favor of doing more digital publishing. Print is a one size fits all model yet e publishing is not so, publishers have a multitude of business models, interfaces, features, etc.  The concept of a one size fits all platform for all publishers content is way ahead of its time, publishers currently could never agree on a standard business model. Pricing standards could help, but are not likely. [Gee, these must be the political and economic barriers that Todd was referring to? Looks like publishers could learn about collaboration from libraries. SP]

Ron Boehm – ABC-CLIO

Publishers need to invest in new things while maintaining our print production, which is expensive for publishers, particularly in these bad economic times. Right now we need to do both [e and p] or we would lose half of our business. The best strategy for ebooks is to have unlimited access. Ron supports the idea of publishers working with multiple aggregators or distributors to have reference content available in a multitude of platforms, but doesn’t recommend the libraries/consortia maintain their own platform. [Ditto on unlimited access and multiple aggregators. OhioLINK has been maintaining its own platforms for years. It’s a great system when you want to make enhancements and don’t have to wait on other companies or the majority of users to agree. SP]