eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Clare van den Blink, Cornell University
Andrea M. Deau, Madison Area Technical College
Steven R. Fleagle, University of Iowa
Bruce Maas, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Rodney Petersen, EDUCAUSE
Shel Waggener, Internet2
2 – © 2013 Internet2
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
3 – © 2013 Internet2
Internet2/EDUCAUSE eText Pilots
Courseload/CourseSmart model comparison,
assessment data (Steve Fleagle)
Pilot findings and considerations for a campus-wide
implementation of e-Content (Clare van den Blink)
Model comparison, accessibility considerations
(Bruce Maas)
Socio-economic implications (Andrea Deau)
eText Pilot Goals
4 – © 2013 Internet2
Results from the Fall 2012 eText Pilot
•
•
•
•
What does it take to pilot e-textbooks?
What is the value of e-textbooks?
Student and faculty experiences
Is the model piloted one that will deliver the value
students and faculty need?
• Conclusions
5 – © 2013 Internet2
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
6 – © 2013 Internet2
Internet2/EDUCAUSE eText Pilots
Courseload/CourseSmart model comparison,
assessment data (Steve Fleagle)
Pilot findings and considerations for a campus-wide
implementation of e-Content (Clare van den Blink)
Model comparison, accessibility considerations
(Bruce Maas)
Socio-economic implications (Andrea Deau)
The University of Iowa
• Overview
– E-text assessment
– Comparison of Courseload and Coursesmart
• The work in the presentation was performed by:
• Sam Van Horne, PhD, Assessment Coordinator, ITS
Instructional Services
• Kathy Schuh, PhD, Associate Professor, College of
Education
• Jane Russell, PhD Candidate, College of Education
7 – © 2013 Internet2
Study design
•
•
•
•
•
•
16 courses, 8 with e-texts, 8 with printed texts
287 etext users vs 276 traditional textbook users
Reading journals with entries or surveys every week
Collected analytics about e-text use
Faculty interviews
Key study questions:
• Is etext use a significant predictor of final grade?
• Does etext use impact reading behavior?
8 – © 2013 Internet2
Initial Attitudes Toward E-textbooks
• Attitudes of Students
– Students were open to using e-textbooks
• Significantly better attitudes with prior
experience with e-textbooks
• E-textbook group were significantly
more willing to use e-textbooks
• Attitudes of Instructors
– Enthusiastic about trying a new form of
textbooks
– Interested, on average, on providing
students with a “substitute”
9 – © 2013 Internet2
Results of Initial Analysis
• Mixed Results from Reading Journals
– The e-textbook group had significantly lower
satisfaction with access to their e-textbooks
– They engaged less often in reading behaviors
– We observed students uses of special
interactive features.
10 – © 2013 Internet2
Initial Results (cont.)
• Student Learning Outcomes
– Thus far, we detect no evidence that using an etextbook was a significant predictor of learning
outcomes
– Instructors tended to think the e-textbook was an
adequate substitute
• Students’ Attitudes Toward E-textbooks
– Students in both groups, on average, preferred to
use a paper textbook
11 – © 2013 Internet2
Some preliminary result of the analytics
Results from Preliminary Analysis of Students' Analytics Data (n=286)
Activity
Number of Students
Mean
SD Median
Pages Read Online
Pages Read Offline
Annotations
274
1
67
276 270
3
0
15 28
215
0
3
Highlights
Notes
Bookmarks
Tags
153
96
108
45
173 321
8 15
7 13
17 29
47
3
2
7
12 – © 2013 Internet2
Recommendations
• Providing guidance on e-text usage
• Assist users with common problems
– Eye strain and longer readings
– How to use the search feature
– Using mark-up tools
13 – © 2013 Internet2
Summary
• Students don’t always take full advantage of text books
(more training or support would help)
• Attitude towards access didn’t change over time
• Attitude towards access did correlate with e-text
satisfaction
• Are e-texts a printed text substitute or part of a learning
platform?
14 – © 2013 Internet2
Courseload
• Model based upon faculty and student engagement rather than
single consumer sales
• Offers full set of features for faculty/student interaction
– Note sharing, questions asked and answered
• Offers usage analytics
• Gap: limited mobile device access
15 – © 2013 Internet2
CourseSmart
• Single consumer model
• Limited engagement opportunities for faculty and
students
– No shared tagging, notes or content comments
• Limited learning analytics available
16 – © 2013 Internet2
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
17 – © 2013 Internet2
Internet2/EDUCAUSE eText Pilots
Courseload/CourseSmart model comparison,
assessment data (Steve Fleagle)
Pilot findings and considerations for a campus-wide
implementation of e-Content (Clare van den Blink)
Model comparison, accessibility considerations
(Bruce Maas)
Socio-economic implications (Andrea Deau)
McGraw-Hill
eTextbooks
Addcomments,
annotations,
etc.
Integration & eText
platform
Book store
CoursePacks
Library Electronic
course reserves
(ARES)
Instructor
Materials
18
eTextbook Pilot
Phase I:
Spring 2012
Exploring the
VALUE of
eTextbooks for
teaching and
learning;
Reduce COSTS for
students;
Research study with
pilot schools.
Phase II:
Fall 2012
Expand source
options for faculty
generated and
library materials;
Review selfpublishing and
eTextbook options;
Continue research
on teaching &
learning impacts.
Phase III:
Spring 2013
Reviewing
eTextbook
technology
platforms for
service readiness.
Compare eTextbook
costs and business
models.
Develop SERVICE
& business strategy.
WHY MOVE TO A
CAMPUS SERVICE?
eTextbook Perspectives
“The technology has
potential”
“I think eTexts can
support learning.”
Research Cited:
Faculty plan on using eTexts
for courses in the future.
convenience, flexibility and the
technology’s
“It’s a good direction
to proceed”
“the move to
eTextbooks is
INEVITABLE”
potential
.
.
Like the web
20 years ago….
Spring 2013 Pilot Goals & Questions
Pilot Questions:
• How do student COSTS
compare?
• How MATURE are the
eTextbook Platforms &
formats?
• Do the features meet
teaching & learning needs?
• Meet acquisition &
distribution needs?
• How does it interface with
book store and academic
technology systems?
• Is it time for Cornell to
INVEST in a central
platform?
campus-wide implementation considerations
eContent: An Integrated approach
• Faculty selection
• Role of Store
Content
selection
Acquisition
• Costs
who pays? How?
• Formats?
• Student choice?
• Duration
• Offline
• LMS integrations?
• IT role
DistributionAccess
100% Sell-Thru
Discounted
individual
licenses.
$ per Student
Flat rate eTextbook
fee based on use
Course Fee
$ pay per use
Cornell Pilot Team & Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Technologies (lead)
Campus book store
Library
IT Policy
Faculty
Students
Is it time to
INVEST
in a central platform
and
campus service?
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
30 – © 2013 Internet2
Internet2/EDUCAUSE eText Pilots
Courseload/CourseSmart model comparison,
assessment data (Steve Fleagle)
Pilot findings and considerations for a campus-wide
implementation of e-Content (Clare van den Blink)
Model comparison, accessibility considerations
(Bruce Maas)
Socio-economic implications (Andrea Deau)
eTextbook Pilots at Wisconsin
Spring 2012
Courseload
800 students
Fall 2012
Courseload
800 students
Spring 2013
CourseSmart
100 students
Anatomy textbook on Courseload eText platform
Wisconsin Guiding Principles
ESSENTIAL
•
Accessibility—all components (text, navigation,
notes/bookmarks/questions) are equivalent or as near-equivalent as
possible for students using assistive technologies
•
Choice for faculty--currency, quality, faculty generated content
IMPORTANT
• Savings for students
• Textbook format choice/flexibility/options
• Long-term and secure access
LONG TERM
• Provides learning enhancements
• Support/leverage open eTextbook adoption/creation
Wisconsin-Using principles to rate platforms
Courseload
CourseSmart
Platform/reader for publisher or
instructor-created content
eTextbook vendor for publisher
texts and platform/reader
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accessibility—IMPROVING
Faculty choice—PROMISING
Savings—PROMISING
Formats—NEEDS WORK
Long term accessPROMISING
• Learning—PROMISING
• Open—PROMISING
Accessibility—PROMISING
Faculty choice—LIMITED
Savings—NEEDS WORK
Formats—NEEDS WORK
Long term access—NEEDS
WORK
• Learning—NEEDS WORK
• Open—POOR
Wisconsin-Accessibility
Courseload: Requires “alongside” solution
CourseSmart: Accessible formats in a few weeks
eText@Illinois: Highly accessible
The challenge is availability of accessible formats from
textbook publishers.
Compared to pilot one, there seems to be a slight shift toward viewing eTexts being perceived as
slightly more useful. It is difficult to know to what degree this shift is attributable to the greater use
of eText features. However, nearly 50% of eText users (46.6%) still view paper as providing a
better learning experience.
Wisconsin-Learning enhancements
40.0%
Overall, do you think eTexts or paper texts provide you with a better learning experience?
(eText users ONLY)
34.5%
35.0%
30.0%
25.7%
25.0%
28.5%
23.6%
21.0%
20.6%
20.0%
16.5%
15.0%
10.0%
18.1%
For Pilot 2: 46.6% of
eText users view paper
texts as significantly or
slightly better than eTexts
7.2%
5.0%
2.7%
0.0%
eText significantly
better
eText slightly better
No difference
(eText vs. Paper)
Paper text slightly
better
Paper text significantly
better
Pilot 1
(N=416
eText
users)
Pilot 2
(N=471
eText
users)
Wisconsin- Accessibility Engagement
McBurney Student Disability
Resource Center
Provide accommodations for
students with print disabilities
Wisconsin-Governance Engagement
• Provost and Provost Executive Group
– Textbook affordability
– Accessibility and long-term access
• Council of Associate Deans
– Accessibility
– Business models
• Information Technology Committee
(Campus IT planning and policy)
– Business models
– Pedagogy
Wisconsin-Future Governance engagement
• University Committee
Faculty Senate
• Leadership Council
Wisconsin-Faculty involvement
Nine instructors in pilots
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Educational Psychology
Engineering
Environmental Science
Journalism
Marketing
Philosophy
Sociology
Wisconsin-Faculty Involvement
• Many already suggest eText rentals as lower cost option
• A few:
–
–
–
–
Adopt open access eTexts/readings
Use Library-licensed eTexts from publishers
Use lower cost eTexts from small publishers
Write and self-publish eTexts
• They need:
–
–
–
–
Coordination with Library purchases
Help with copyright issues
Help with discovery, review, modification, creation
A campus eText platform for delivery
Wisconsin-Future Instructor Involvement
• A one-day symposium in
Fall 2013 to build
community on using
eTexts and eContent
• A Library-led focus on
open eText adoption
Wisconsin-Engagement with Students
ASM (Associated Students of
Madison)
University Affairs Subcommittee
focus on textbook affordability
– Collaborations to vet cost
models
– Gather student opinions
Wisconsin-Transformation
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
44 – © 2013 Internet2
Internet2/EDUCAUSE eText Pilots
Courseload/CourseSmart model comparison,
assessment data (Steve Fleagle)
Pilot findings and considerations for a campus-wide
implementation of e-Content (Clare van den Blink)
Model comparison, accessibility considerations
(Bruce Maas)
Socio-economic implications (Andrea Deau)
about Madison Area Technical College
Offer more than 140
associate degree and
technical diploma
programs, as well as
trade apprenticeships
and other certifications
and adult continuing
education programs.
40,000 student headcount
12,000 FTEs
Demographics
Female
63%
Yes – Disability
11%
Male
36%
No – Disability
89%
18 and under
4%
African-American
6%
19 to 24
37%
1%
25 to 34
31%
American Indian or Alaskan
Native
35 to 44
14%
Asian or Pacific Islander
6%
45 and over
14%
Caucasian/White
75%
Hispanic
6%
Other race
2%
Race – Prefer not to answer
4%
Access
Holly Mercier, Faculty
http://youtu.be/rtNo5Y0zzbw
Patricia Marco, Faculty
http://youtu.be/mxvL9IEfQ7w
47
Goals
•
Advance Madison College’s understanding of online materials, and
what is necessary to attain and surpass the effectiveness, accessibility,
economy, and other relevant outcomes associated with traditional
textbooks, and
•
Explore innovative business models, terms, and conditions that make
access to digital educational materials more flexible, economical, efficient,
and simple for institutions and publishers alike and ultimately reduce costs
for students
•
Cultivate a culture of innovation and continuous improvement through
professional development opportunities for staff.
Pilot Make-up
Fall 2012 Pilot
Spring 2013 Pilot
• 158 Students
• 6 Faculty
• 298 Students
• 8 Faculty
•
•
Courseload/McGraw Hill
• Courses:
–
–
–
–
Business Statistics
Marketing Principles
Microbiology
Physics
Courseload/McGraw Hill
• Courses:
– Environmental Science:
Faculty authored opentext
– Marketing Principles
– Microbiology
– Human Behavior at Work
– Physics: OpenStax text
Faculty Perspective
Holly Mercier, Faculty
http://youtu.be/82BoTML93Zo
Patricia Marco, Faculty
http://youtu.be/YQUQFYB3_7Y
50
eText Roundtable: Views from the Campus
Clare van den Blink
Cornell University
cv36@cornell.edu
Steven Fleagle
University of Iowa
Steve-fleagle@uiowa.edu
Andrea Deau
Madison Area Technical College
ADeau@madisoncollege.edu
Bruce Maas
University of Wisconsin-Madison
bruce.maas@cio.wisc.edu
Internet2/EDUCAUSE
eText-Pilot@internet2.edu
APPENDIX
Results from the Fall 2012 E-textbook Pilot
Rodney Petersen, EDUCAUSE
Susan Grajek, EDUCAUSE
Pilot structure

20 institutions, Internet2, EDUCAUSE, McGraw-Hill,
and Courseload
Pilot structure, continued
 Each institution paid a $20,000 fee to
Internet2 to participate in the pilot, and
 No institutions passed those costs on to
students or faculty.
 Digital versions of McGraw-Hill textbooks
were provided at no cost to all students,
faculty, and teaching assistants in the 393
pilot courses.
 Access to the e-textbooks expired at the
end of the pilot.
Today’s summary




What does it take to pilot e-textbooks?
What is the value of e-textbooks?
Student and faculty experiences
Is the model piloted one that will deliver the
value students and faculty need?
 Conclusions
What does it take to pilot e-textbooks?
Many stakeholders
Percent of institutions
Units involved in the e-textbook pilot
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Institutional survey, N=17 participating
Sponsors
 The CIO was most often the sponsor
 The provost, head librarian, and lead for
academic technologies equally frequently
the second most common sponsors
Criteria used for selecting pilot
faculty
80%
Percent of institutions
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Institutional survey, N=17 participating
Change management 101
 Involve stakeholders
 Get executive support
 Provide ongoing communications and
support
 Buy-in
 Maintain momentum
 Help constituents successfully navigate
change
 Faculty received the most support
What is the value of e-textbooks?
What students and faculty value in e-textbooks
Innovation
I teach better, I learn better
Functionality
Portability
Accessibility
Cost
It works for me, where
I want it, when I
want it
I can afford it,
it’s good for the
environment
Students’
motivations
Importance of specific e-textbook features for purchasing
decisions
Extremely
5.00
4.50
4.00
Quite a bit
75
%
Percentages above bars are the percent of students who responded “extremely” or “quite a bit”
60
%
3.50
3.00
55
%
48
%
44
%
45
%
average
rating
Somewh
at
2.50
41
%
41
%
38
%
2.00
A little
1.50
1.00
Not
The eTextbook costs The eTextbook is
The eTextbook is
The eTextbook is
The eTextbook is
less than a used or more portable than accessible without an more environmentally available for my
rented traditional traditional textbooks. Internet connection.
friendly than
entire academic
textbook.
traditional
textbooks
career,
not only for
at
one semester
all
The eTextbook is
readable on tablets
(e.g., iPad, Galaxy).
The eTextbook is
The eTextbook
readable on a
includes bonus
handheld mobile material (e.g., links to
devices (e.g., iPhone,
videos, selfAndroid phone).
assessments).
The eTextbook has
the capability to
permit me to share
notes or questions
with the professor
and other students.
Source: student survey, n=~5388
Faculty motivations mirror students’
Faculty priorities for institutions’
e-textbook strategy
Exploring new
approaches to
pedagogy
15%
Promoting
student choice
and flexibility
42%
Reducing the
cost of
textbooks
43%
 The faculty’s
primary motivation
for piloting etextbooks was to
help their students.
 Their secondary
motivations were
curiosity and the
opportunity to
innovate.
Student and faculty experience
Use of e-textbooks
E-textbook feature usage by course
 Students:
160 pages
 Faculty &
TAs: 30
pages
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent of courses
 Faculty and
students in
every course
viewed the
e-textbooks
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Faculty
Students
Source: Courseload usage data, n=~393 courses
Impact on studying and learning
80
70
60
50
40
Yes/More
No change
30
No/Less
20
10
0
Studied differently with
eTextbook than paper
textbook
Reading habits changed
when using eTextbook
Amount of assigned
material read compared
with paper textbook
eTextbook made difficult
concepts more/less
understandable
Source: Student teaching and learning survey, n=~1752
improved their studying, learning, or engagement in
the course
80
Percent of students
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent agreeing
Percent disagreeing
Source: student survey, n=~5388
E-textbook adherents and detractors
Students
Faculty
Strong
adherents
9%
Neutral
32%
Adherents
27%
Neutral
22%
Adherents
45%
Detractors
33%
Detractors
32%
Source: student survey, n=~5388
Source: faculty teaching and learning survey,
n=~29
Comments from faculty
Detractors
 The interface was so clunky
that no one used it.
 I find that many of my
students are reading the text
less than before - or perhaps
it is just that I know this now,
because I can see it on the
stats. ... I must say that I
don't especially like using the
e-text in my course.
 Severe technical difficulties.
Not worth it. Students did not
like it despite the "savings."
Adherents
 I love having the
option of offering it.
 I enjoyed very much
and I would like to
see it implemented
in many more
courses at the
university.
 Including online
code / activities in
online text was
wonderful
Differences between student e-textbook
adherents and detractors
average
rating
Strongly
agree/A great
deal
Neutral/so
mewhat
Strongly
disagree/
Not at all
Using the eText the first Courseload features and
Plan to purchase
few times was difficult navigation were easy to
eTextbooks over
use
traditional textbooks in
the future.
Detractors
Usefulness of
instructor’s highlights
and/or annotations
Usefulness of ematerial
the instructor added to
the eText
Adherents
Source: student survey, n=~5388
Students’ support of e-textbooks varies by
course
100
90
80
Percent of students
70
60
Adherents
50
Neutral
Detractors
40
30
20
10
0
Course
Source: student survey, n=~5388
In general fewer than half of faculty incorporated
the e-textbooks into their teaching
How instructors used e-textbooks
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
In assignments
or projects
In class
discussions
Faculty respondents
In quizzes, tests In group work,
Instructor
Instructor
Instructor
Course
or other
team activities showed eText
added
encouraged assessment was
assignments
graphics/visuals annotations or students to add based on class
(write-in
comments to
their own
sessions and
response)
the eTextbook annotations or text material
comments to
the eTextbook
Student respondents
Sources: Faculty teaching and learning survey, n=45 and
Student teaching and learning survey, n=~1752
Is the model piloted one that will deliver the value students
and faculty need?
Evaluation of the pilot’s approach
Is this
Internet2 and
EDUCAUSE
approach a
good model
for future
e-services
and content
explorations?
6%
24%
71%
Would you
do this
again for
future
services?
14%
29%
29%
35%
No
Somewhat
Yes
Probably not
Only for a limited, very
important set of services
Probably
Almost certainly
Pilot’s biggest strengths and limitations
Strengths
 Pilot structure
 Demand
aggregation,
centralized and
coordinated support
 Cross-institutional
collaboration and
teamwork
Limitations
 Vendor/publisher
issues
 E-text limitations
 Limitations of a pilot
approach
 Execution of the pilot
Greater savings when more students
participated
$150,000


Average savings
student: $138
Total: Up to $1.3M
Break-even point
for institutions:
~300 students
$130,000
$110,000
Net savings

$90,000
$70,000
$50,000
$30,000
$10,000
-$10,000
0
500
1000
1500
Number of students
Source: Institutional survey, N=17 participating
Predictions for future student savings: hope
and doubt
What are your predictions for student savings in 3 to 5 years?









Students should benefit the most from the adoption of eContent and I
hope that their savings continue to mount, especially as the cost of their
education continues to increase.
Yes [due to] open content
Uncertain, but hoping would reduce costs
I hope this will increase - less optimistic that it will make an impact
Difficult to predict. As the shackles of the print media are released, it is
possible we’ll see more resources wrapped into eContent. If this is
true, then student savings will be negligible – and eContent cost could
conceivably go up.
Minimal
Impacted by leasing models, resale of print versions, popularity of
Open Educational Resource Texts.
Limited until students adapt to or prefer eTexts
Not sure if students will save that much - publishers seem determined
to keep digital prices high and don't appear to be offering substantial
discounts for digital versions
Institutional costs to implement this
model are predicted to increase over
current costs
Substantial costs
7.00
Moderate costs
6.00
90th
percentile
Minor costs 5.00
Savings/cost4.00
neutral
averag
e
3.00
Minor savings
10th percentile
2.00
Moderate savings
1.00
Substantial savings
The institution
overall
IT
Disability services
Bookstore
Learning center
Library
Registrar/enrollment
management
Source: Institutional survey, N=17 participating
Awkward fit: Students prefer print, but used
devices for e-textbooks
90
Preferred reading platform for
studying
How students read etextbooks
80%
70%
50
60%
30
50%
Percent of
students
70
40%
10
30%
-10
20%
-30
Most preferred
Second most
-50
10%
Second least
Least preferred
0%
Laptop
-70
Print
Desk/Laptop e-reader
Tablet
Mobile
device
Paper
version of
e-text
Desktop
Tablet
Paper
printouts
Mobile
device
All students (including those who did not use this method)
Students who used this method
Source: Student teaching and learning survey,
Source: student survey, n=~5388
Portability and accessibility



57 student comments praised the greater portability and
accessibility of e-textbooks
1,006 usability complaints
Common complaints:








Lack of offline access to the e-textbooks
Difficulty using the e-textbook on a variety of tablets
Severe limitations to smartphone access, including the
inability to zoom the text
Unavailability of the e-textbook on e-readers
Slow page loading and other Internet browser issues
Poor functionality compared with contemporary
standards set by e-readers and smartphone and tablet
e-books.
Difficulty reading text on screens and preferences for
print
Loss of access to the e-textbook at the course’s end
Summary results
Value driver
Results
• Doubts about publisher-driven model delivering student savings.
 Cost
• Explore open resources?
• Institutional costs predicted to increase
 Accessibility
Accessibility • Need better reading interfaces and/or easy, cheap print options
 Portability
• Need to provide seamless offline access
Portability
Current model didn’t work well on smartphones or e-readers
 Functionality
Functionality • Poor functionality compared with contemporary, consumer-level standards
 Innovation
• Faculty’s low usage of features
Cost
limited students’ experiences
Innovation
Many deterrents to faculty innovation:
• Limited (to course term) access
• Doubts about solution quality
Doubts about the solution’s value
(reducing costs)
• (Possibly) insufficient support for instructional innovation
Conclusions
The pilot shows the path forward: Address faculty and students’
fundamental motivations:
 Today’s course materials are too expensive
 The environment factors into cost calculations.
 They want choice: Choice of platform (including print), choice
of place of access (including offline), choice of sourcing their
textbooks.
 They see digital course materials as the way of the future.



Need to be available on contemporary and emergent devices
and interfaces.
Requirements are shaped by their experiences as consumers at
least as much by their experiences using institutional
applications.
They are here to teach and learn, and most welcome
opportunities to be more effective. They need support to do
this.
Conclusions, continued
 Rather than focus on reformulating an existing
model of publisher-provided content for electronic
media, we might be wiser to expand our
explorations to new forms of content and new
models of content delivery
 While IT clearly has a role to play to support,
deliver, and help design new methods of providing
digital course materials, it must collaborate and
co-lead with many other groups.
 Any explorations in the area of digital course
materials must not just involve, it must empower
and incentivize faculty
Thank you!
These findings will be published by the
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research later
this spring
www.educause.edu/ecar
sgrajek@educause.edu