Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

eReaders and ePublishing: developing a model for flexible and open distance learning


Published on

Seminar presentation from the CDE’s Research and Innovation in Distance Education and eLearning conference, held at Senate House London on 19 October 2012. Conducted by Patricia McKellar (UOL Undergraduate Laws Programme) and Steven Warburton (Uni of Surrey).

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

eReaders and ePublishing: developing a model for flexible and open distance learning

  1. 1. eReaders and ePublishing:developing a model for flexibleand open distance learningPatricia McKellar and Steven WarburtonRIDE ConferenceOctober 19th 2012, London
  2. 2. • 20,000+ Undergraduate Laws• Global market (1o0 countries)• 50 recognised teaching institutions• LLB degrees anddiplomas• Academic quality and direction maintained by ‘lead colleges’• Two student ‘study types’ from self study to teaching institution supported.
  3. 3. why?eReaders and ePublishing
  4. 4. institutional context: print-based text
  5. 5. student context: digital and mobile
  6. 6. • 10 billion• 1.4 per person• 25 billion• 24.9 billion• 10 billion• 1 billion per month• 50%• 70%
  7. 7. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2010) Gesture Based Computing 4 to 5 years Visual data analysis Electronic Books 2 to 3 years Simple augmented reality Mobile Computing 1 year or less Open content
  8. 8. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2011) Gesture Based Computing 4 to 5 years Learning analytics Game based learning 2 to 3 years Augmented reality Electronic books 1 year or less Mobile
  9. 9. emerging technologies and adoption horizons (2012) Gesture Based Computing 4 to 5 years Internet of things Game based learning 2 to 3 years Learning analytics Mobile apps 1 year or less Tablet computing
  10. 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timeliness); • Leanness (warehouse stacked with books/study guides not ‘doing anything’); • Waste (over publish; out of date).Lack of flexibility in outputsImpact on responsiveness and scalabilityLack of flexibility for students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. 11. explore ePublishing and eReaders - what impact on:student study environment; business models
  12. 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 (
  13. 13. how?
  14. 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 via survey and focus group
  15. 15. five pilot groups: Pilot groupsGermany; Kenya; Singapore; two in UK.
  16. 16. stakeholder impactPrimary Secondary• 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. 17. our project Kobo and eBookStore (distribution)Publishersand ePubs(access) Students (learning and teaching)
  18. 18. results
  19. 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 using ‘dead 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 and access to the online resources and case databases on the 06:19 to Waterloo (2)• Functionality: annotations, bookmarking, highlighting, definition tool, translation tool, return to a section, battery life, search facility (1, 3)
  20. 20. What did students not like about this approach?• Functionality: sufficient light, annotations, bookmarking, highlighting, battery life, search facility, slow loading, speed of changes, no hyperlinks, touch screen not always effective, lack of colour (1, 3);• Not having all the subjects on the eReader and having to go back and forth 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 you’d struggle but in conjunction with the VLE or hard copy it’s perfect (4)
  21. 21. Note taking and Highlighting• Some issues of functionality• Feedback 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 place• Being 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 separately• Sharing with other students Learning Analytics
  22. 22. is the approach working?• I can read the materials in situations where I would never have brought and read the hard copy versions• In my prior classes I often did not do the ‘further reading’since the books were so heavy• Overall I was able to increase my reading hours for a topic• 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. 23. Increase in further Lack of ability toreading; time efficient see 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 views ROI: cost benefit analysis based on educational and/or business processes. What is your context?
  24. 24. Phase 2: scalability and business process distribution distribution DRM and DRM and Publishers eReader manufacturer eReader manufacturer Student Student eTexts; rich Preloaded Preloaded eTexts; rich media; eActivities eReader eReader media; eActivitieshtml5/CSS3/ePub3 Educational institution Educational institution Repository; xml; editorial cycle; LD; DRM; book Flexible Flexible store; library Mobile Mobile Identify: capacity building issues Connected Connected
  25. 25. where next?
  26. 26. thank you