1. eReaders and ePublishing:developing a model for flexibleand open distance learningPatricia McKellar and Steven WarburtonRIDE ConferenceOctober 19th 2012, London

2. 20,000+ Undergraduate Laws Global market (1o0 countries) 50 recognised teaching institutions LLB degrees anddiplomas Academic quality and direction maintained by leadcolleges Two student study types from self study toteaching institution supported. 3. why?eReaders and ePublishing 4. institutional context: print-based text 5. student context: digital and mobile 6. 10 billion 1.4 per person 25 billion 24.9 billion 10 billion 1 billion per month 50% 70% 7. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2010) Gesture Based Computing 4 to 5 years Visual data analysisElectronic Books2 to 3 yearsSimple augmented reality Mobile Computing1 year or less Open content 8. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2011) Gesture Based Computing4 to 5 years Learning analyticsGame based learning 2 to 3 yearsAugmented reality Electronic books 1 year or less Mobile 9. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2012) Gesture Based Computing4 to 5 years Internet of thingsGame based learning 2 to 3 yearsLearning analytics Mobile apps1 year or less Tablet computing 10. problem spacePrint driven publishing model that effects: Sustainability (learning technologies); Costs; Logistics (global dispatch/delivery; timeliness); Leanness (warehouse stacked with books/study guides not doing anything); Waste (over publish; out of date).Lack of flexibility in outputsImpact on responsiveness and scalabilityLack of flexibility for students 11. explore ePublishing and eReaders - what impact on:student study environment; business models 12. other projects, other studies University of Leicester Duckling project Kindle US Universities project California Lutheran University pilot project University of Manchester JL Library Loughborough University e-reader project World reader project (http://www.worldreader.org/) 13. how? 14. action consideration of ePublishing formats (.epub /.mobi /DRM) end device/s designed activity/s identification of pilot groups success criteria for the stakeholder groups evaluation (UAT) and data gathering methodology viasurvey and focus group 15. five pilot groups: Pilot groupsGermany; Kenya; Singapore; two in UK. 16. stakeholder impactPrimarySecondary For students (study) For tutors For the UoLIP (business) For provider teaching For publishers institutions For device manufacturer For content authors For HEA (funding body) and For publishing teams wider research community For DRM managers 17. our project Kobo and eBookStore (distribution)Publishersand ePubs(access) Students (learning and teaching) 18. results 19. What were the best aspects of this approach? Convenience and portability, light and handy (1); A large amount of study material to be stored and accessed on the go (1,3); Able to study in more bite size chunks because I had the option of usingdead time; (2, 4) I can optimise the amount of time I spend studying (4) The ability to have the subject guide, the study pack, the textbook andaccess to the online resources and case databases on the 06:19 toWaterloo (2) Functionality: annotations, bookmarking, highlighting, definition tool,translation tool, return to a section, battery life, search facility (1, 3) 20. What did students not like about this approach? Functionality: sufficient light, annotations, bookmarking, highlighting,battery life, search facility, slow loading, speed of changes, nohyperlinks, touch screen not always effective, lack of colour (1, 3); Not having all the subjects on the eReader and having to go back andforth with hard copy (3); A bit too one dimensional [hyperlinks] (3); Sometimes its hard to concentrate as it feels like staring at a PC (1); Impossible to look at two books at once (1, 4); If it was just supplied like this and said do the UoL course youd strugglebut in conjunction with the VLE or hard copy its perfect (4) 21. Note taking and HighlightingSome issues of functionalityFeedback overall positive: very useful, easy to create and easy to find, easy to identify information to link to legal arguments, easy to tag for further investigation, makes notes in the one placeBeing a more paper based person I usually prefer to make notes on paper. However the convenience of the entire function when I am on the move allows me to highlight and take notes when paper is unavailable. Thus I have resorted to first making notes in the ereader and later if necessary write it out separatelySharing with other studentsLearning Analytics 22. is the approach working? I can read the materials in situations where I wouldnever have brought and read the hard copy versions In my prior classes I often did not do the furtherreadingsince the books were so heavy Overall I was able to increase my reading hours for atopic Attention and retention reported as improved Easier to carry around hence inclined to finish activities Unintended consequences -> life-styling; power user digital vs. paper divide Paper = flexible note-taking Digital = organisational advantages 23. Increase in furtherLack of ability toreading; time efficientsee more than one documentLightweight and portable Highlighting andFlexible, adaptive notetaking limited Limited interactivitySuits different learning styles More guidance neededUse of dead time Device functionalityDevice functionality ve views+ve viewsROI: cost benefit analysis based on educational and/orbusiness processes. What is your context? 24. Phase 2: scalability and business process distribution distribution DRM and DRM and Publishers eReader manufacturer eReader manufacturer StudentStudent eTexts; rich Preloaded PreloadedeTexts; rich media; eActivities eReader eReadermedia; eActivitieshtml5/CSS3/ePub3Educational institution Educational institution Repository; xml; editorial cycle; LD; DRM; book FlexibleFlexible store; libraryMobileMobileIdentify: capacity building issues ConnectedConnected 25. where next? 26. thank you