Left Menu Right Menu

Established: September 2016
This group will conduct a more expansive environmental scan that focuses on gap analysis in order to identify potential Alliance role(s) in Open Educational Resources (OERs). This would include (but not be limited to) the current and proposed activities of national entities like the Open Textbook Network and existing initiatives in Oregon and Washington, including targeted conversations with key organizations and individuals. Clearly OERs present both opportunities for proactive creation and curation of educational content and challenges related to discovery, quality, and sustainability in different institutional contexts. Further, the role of libraries in this area is still evolving, and varies by institution. The outcome of this work would be a recommendation that the Alliance pursue, or not pursue, one or more Alliance roles in this area, and a consideration of potential overlap/competition with other organizations for each role, and then also bring out the unique strengths that the Alliance would offer.

The group should thoroughly review the report from the FY16 group to ensure that their efforts build on the previous group’s work. See https://www.orbiscascade.org/file_viewer.php?id=4171
In discussing these conclusions, the CCD Team observed that there is already a lot of activity in this area, including that of other organizations (e.g. the Open Textbook Network) and statewide initiatives in Oregon and Washington. There is also a great deal of interest: the discussion at summer meeting was well-attended and lively. At one of those sessions, a Council member suggested that a more expansive environmental scan that focuses on gap analysis is a very viable direction. The CCD Team concurs with that suggestion since it will allow us to determine if there is (or isn’t) a role for the Alliance.

A report that characterizes the gap analysis and identifies potential Alliance role(s) in OERs.

Depending on the type of role(s) the group identifies, its report needs to be reviewed by the Board, and perhaps Council. Depending on other agenda items, this could be either the February-March or June-July meetings.

Considerable interest in and knowledge of OERs and their utility and issues for a variety of academic libraries including public, private, and four- and two-year. Knowledge of institutional, regional, and national projects designed to incentivize creation, maintenance, and discovery of OERs (for instance, BCcampus publishing program, OpenStax, Open Textbook Library, Open SUNY, etc.).

Type of Group and General Comments
Teams can form ad hoc working groups that are chaired by a team member with membership drawn from staff at member libraries. Selected working groups might also include non-members. For example, a working group concerned with the courier might include non-member participants. Joint Working Groups may be formed by the Board and assigned to a lead team.