Sandy is here

OLC Registration: https://www.cvent.com/events/olc-collaborate-los-angeles/registration-4567099625254faaa02fc8079b83a473.aspx?fqp=true

Does anyone know where OpenEd 18 will be?

AL$ RSVP Link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W5T_UF4_vuDYkWgHWNt85U2brdDng5-VMCrkXnSN6rU

Looking forward to the January 30 event!

Hotel block: https://aws.passkey.com/go/15163374

CSUSB does not have AB 798 grant. Can we apply for AB 798 for the first time this Spring or is it too late?

So, if we did 50 the first time, we'd be required to do an additional 100? Unique sections?

Hi Bibiana. Per what Gerry is saying, yes, you can apply in partnership with a current ab 798 grantee. we can help you with this.

how many course sections do you need for the first time applying for the grant?

I love the idea! But, why would campuses that are applying by themselves get priority funding over those that are partnering with other campuses?

Ok, so I cannot do it for the first time? We will have to partner with someone? if you can find one to help us. This would be great!!

Bibiana. Minimum application is 10 courses which includes $10K.

Suzanne. We'll ask Gerry.

Great! I have now 17!

Great. Go for it. It's $1K per course.

So...I was not a Phase I grantee, but am thinking of Phase II. Can I use materials placed by Phase I grantees in COOL4Ed for my courses?

Can we use AB 798 grant money to give to the librarians to help faculty to buy e-book liscenses to students?

If items are already in COOL4ED do we want to load again? Do we need several links to an openstax psych book for example?

Is there a link to the procedures for “cataloging” OER in AB 798?

Dan. That's a yes.

What does the "partnering" entail. Do we both have to have a certain number of sections to fulfill?

Where in the legislation does it require “double” the goal (50 sections) from the year 1 funding?

So, if we did 50 sections the first time, we'd be required to do an additional 100? Unique sections?

That makes sense - thank you Gerry :)

Is "partnering" meant to be more like "mentoring" from the Phase I grantee?

So in round 2, we can propose 50 new sections for 50K or 100 new sections for 50K?

Jim. We've got a form for submitting the OER for us to add to COOL

I found the “doubling” language - para (6)

For round 2 funding, are the numbers for doubling the sections based on the original RFP submitted or based upon the progress made with round 1 funding?

Teresa, is that an online form? Or something you’ll email to us?

So, a strict reading of AB 798 is that Phase II was just for Phase I grantees. Gerry is trying to find a way for non-Phase I colleges to get on board. Sorry. should have written "Round" instead of "Phase."

Better, OK.

Meghan. Just another 50.

Oh, double in total, not double for the round whew

Jim. It is an online form.

ok, that makes sense now. I misunderstood the doubling requirement

Teresa, can you share the link?

New OER spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BygtG_s2udQFFx3zhhYD103DzodBmuSM7OfUXgL_2Bs/edit#gid=0

So if we think we can do another 50 for round two, do we need to partner? Not that I wouldn't be happy to share ideas, etc. but I think we'd appreciate not sharing the $ as that has been critical to getting the adoptions.

We call in "initiative fatigue" in the CCCs!

If your campus can get 50 implementations on your own, no need to partner.

Ok thanks, Teresa, that’s a view only sheet so what’s the best way for us to add our stuff to it?

But do non-Round 1's need to get a partner to particiapte in Round 2?

So, if we went over our goal (ie: we have 60 sections instead of 50), we would need to convert an addtional 50. Can we include the extra sections (in this case 10) that we were able to convert for the next round -- or do we start at "0" at the beginning of round 2 and only count new converts from that point forward for the new "50"?

I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is the timeline for implementation for round two?

Can we use AB 798 grant money to give to the librarians to help faculty to buy e-book liscenses to students? or the 1k is just for the Faculty?

Same Q as Walter

Same Q as Walter too

We exceeded 50 in the fall, and are expecting new conversions in WInter/Spring...

I also have a note about the Cool4Ed cataloging and sharing. For sections that used Existing Institutional Resources (library articles and ebooks), there would be nothing to catalog/share via Cool4Ed.

Ok got it, thanks

I thought 798 grant was no cost/OER only, not 30% reduction - my understanding was only AL$ grant was 30%. I'm confused.

No, you only have to reduce by 30% for AB-798

@Shelli - AB798 requires 30% cost savings. SB 1359 is no cost (ZCCM).

Tahoe will probabably not have another 50 courses, since we are small, but we could partner.

In addition to 30% savings, you also have to save at least $1000 for the course.

Is it possible to get a list of colleges that did not apply in round 1 so we contact them to partner with them?

So could there be a partnership with Suzanne at Butte and Chico State?

Jinan. we have a list online and will share the info with the listserv after this call

hi Susan, only need to save 30%

@Teresa - then I submitted incorrect info on my draft, as I only listed OER/no cost as that was our proposed goal "50 sections OER/no cost" - should I go and add all the 30% reductions that I have on my AL$ grant then, even though that wasn't the goal we purposed ot achieve?

Is the whole partnership limited to $50K or $50K each?

Walter had a great question above

What is the timeline for implemetation of round 2 courses?

I'd liek an answer to Walter's Q too

Sounds like a good plan - lots of flexibility.

Sounds good!

thumbs up

good

:)

I was thinking along those lines too! Confirmation :)

Got it.

We are thinking about participating, it sounds good to me.

Thanks Walter, I had the same question

Fall 2018, Spring 2019

thumbs up - (would be nice to provide more $ to partiner colleges.)

Gerry, thank you for all the work you have done on this!!

Final Report: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17cVB3lhIxG0itxeZ582u65uWWrexGqP9tNKG5egVQF8/edit#gid=938987158

Since courses using EIR (articles from the Library database, etc.) are not using real OER, do we have to list all those articles for every course section? That doesn’t seem useful or practical.

AB 798 OER List: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BygtG_s2udQFFx3zhhYD103DzodBmuSM7OfUXgL_2Bs/edit#gid=0

Also big thanks to Theresa and Leslie. I served on COERC and they did a great job!

It's a full-time job just trying to read all the listservs for OER suggestions.

@Thank you, Dan. Feeling is mutual.

Will there be a way to include Canvas created materials?

Erin is wonderful!! Thank you!

@Larry - we're determining how to do. Will keep you posted.

Sorry to keep asking this, Teresa. So now I see on the final reporting template that there is a space for OER names and links. If we just put it there then that’s it on our end - someone on your end will translate that over to the OER list you shared?

CSUF has the symbol in place in Peoplesoft for Spring 2018 so Zero Cost is searchable on our digital schedule

@Jim - Yes, please use whichever one works best for you.

Our SIS is Colleague and, according to our campus ITS department, our version does not allow us to make the schedule searchable by ZCCM/OER, nor can we add any graphical icons, so we are likely only able to create a pdf list of courses for the time being (or so I have been told). Is anyone else using Colleague? What was needed?

Ok, thanks, Teresa - I don’t see any way to directly add to the OER list so I will just include it on our report.

@Jim - sounds good,.

We have the process in place for ZCCM with a systems link between the Bookstore and Enrollment Services systems. Educating faculty on ZCCM/SB1359 is ongoing.

Re: 1359 and online schedule. I agree with Gerry's thoughts. I will also message LeBaron Woodyard in the CCC Chancellor's Office for his thoughts.

Just put into production today - Colleague

We have fully implemented our SB 1359 process and it seems to be working fine. We are also working on a resolution where we will also tag courses that are low-cost to students, not just free. We have a problem, though. We are having trouble defining low-cost in a way that will be easy to program into our system. Is anyone working on something similar?

htp://webadvisor.rsccd.edu icon is used to indicate search field

We’re collecting ZTC info directly from faculty within our PeopleSoft SIS. This results in the logo being displayed with the class in the online schedule and also all ZTC classes are dynamically listed here: http://www.miracosta.edu/instruction/oer/classes.aspx (133 at present)

Students also can search on ZTC status in the online schedule.

We’re working on approving an LTC designation as well which will work the same way - faculty will self-designate for each class directly in the SIS.

How has everyone communicated to their students about the new ZCCM designation and icon? Just curious to learn some new ideas, thanks!

One other question that came from our Deans...if the materials need to be digital in format, and this means students must then have access to a computer, but do not have their own, does this not negate the class being "zero-cost"?

Jen - we’re working on a under $40 version, too, at SacState

We were under the impression that goggles, yoga mats, lab coats, graphing calculators or similar would not qualify as ZCCM since it has a student cost.

We are excluding basic school supplies since most students will not need to make a purchase specifically for any one course.

Thanks Leslie and everyone!

http://affordablelearning.sfsu.edu/

We tried the student newspaper and they did not bite.

Thanks, Teresa, Leslie, Gerry, & co! Gotta run …

We have some classes with things like Art Supply kits and similar that carry a significant cost. I would not advocate for putting a ZCCM icon on a course with any non-standard required supplies with a student cost. It doesn't seem transparent.

@Mary - In our view, needing a tool to access the digital material doesn't negate eligibility

Gotta run

Thank you for that confirmation Theresa. That is what I was assuming as well, but wanted to be sure I was answering internal questions correctly.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks Gerry & Leslie!

ASCCC Resolution:

Fall2017Resolution Number:13.01Contact:Michelle PilatiCategory:General ConcernsWhereas, The significant rise in costs of textbooks is a barrier to college attendance, student access, and student success, and many colleges are interested in reducing the cost of textbooks to increase student access to necessary course materials;Whereas, The intent of the College Textbook Affordability Act of 2015 (AB 798, Bonilla, 2015) is to reduce costs for college students by encouraging faculty to accelerate the adoption of lower cost, high-quality, open educational resources (OER), and the Zero-Textbook-Cost Degree Grant Program focuses on the development of degrees with no associated text costs;Whereas, Senate Bill 1359 (Block, 2016) requires all segments of public higher education in California to “Clearly highlight, by means that may include a symbol or logo in a conspicuous place on the online campus course schedule, the courses that exclusively use digital course materials that are free of charge to stu

https://affordablelearningsolutions.org/

Titan Shops bookstore at Fullerton has done extensive work including national surveys, publisher partnership, etc. to identify ‘low-cost.’ They have developed a chart with icons to identify different levels of low-cost. The difficulty is that certain disciplines (STEM, Business, and Nursing) materials are always much higher cost than other disciplines and it may appear to be an unfair comparison of instructors’ efforts regarding affordable solutions.

ASCCC Resolution 13.01 in Fall 2017. https://asccc.org/resources/resolutions

Nice AL$ Resource site - thanks!

Happy Holidays!

Take care!

Thank you! Have a great end of the year!

Happy Holidays!

Thank you! Happy Holidays!

Enjoy the break! Happy Holidays!

Thanks! Have a great break!