Cody Taylor University of Oklahoma Libraries Being True To The 5 Rs: Publishing OER That Are Easy To Reuse and Remix Cody Taylor University of Oklahoma Libraries Hi, My name is Cody Taylor. This is “Being True to the 5 Rs: Publishing OER That Are Easy to Reuse and Remix.” I am an Emerging Technologies Librarian at the university of Oklahoma. I have worked in support of our OER efforts going on four years now. In my current role I work on the nitty gritty of producing OER. We are fortunate enough to have a few people at my institution working on OER. I work with Jen Waller, our OER Coordinator, who is in the room and a half-time student employee Brian Bimah. My role in our team is to investigate new approaches to OER, implement them, and help our grantees with publishing open content.

Outline Context: OU Libraries Alternative Textbook Grant Realization: Open Content Definition Permission: 5 Rs Ability: ALMS Framework Propose an OER authoring workflow Today I want to talk a little bit more about our program which will characterize the path we took which led to the workflow I will propose before we close.

OU Libraries Alternative Textbook Grant Currently in 4th grant cycle Grants range from $250 - $2,500 USD Savings to date: $1.6M USD OU Libraries is currently in its fouth annual cycle of its microgrant program which we call the Alternative Textbook Grant. We award grant ranging between $250 and $2500 depending on the impact of the implementation. In supporting this grant we have experimented with a number of different publishing methods including working with faculty who have created PDFs using Microsoft Word. Some have created websites using Wordpress, other have used iBooks author and recently PressBooks. Supporting all of these different publishing methods has been difficult and is unsustainable for a team of our size. One thing that has come up several times with the faculty I have worked with is that they want to publish their resources in more than one format. They want it available on the web, but also a print, and no one wants to use anything other than Microsoft Word. Over the past four years I have given this problem a lot of thought and I want to outline for you today the trajectory we’re currently on.

Definition: Open Content The terms “open content” and “open educational resources” describe any copyrightable work that is licensed in a manner that provides users with free and perpetual permission to engage in the 5R activities: Most of us here are familiar with the Open Content Definition which is the pillar by which we do our work. It says that there are five permissions, strictly speaking, that must be granted about a resource in order for it to qualify as an OER. This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

The 5 Rs: Permission Retain – the right to make, own, and control . . . Reuse – the right to use content . . . Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter . . . Remix – the right to . . . make something new Redistribute – the right to share copies . . . “Legal requirements and restrictions make open content and OER less open.” Those retain, the right to make, own, and control a resource. The right to reuse the content of an OER. The right to revise, adapt, adjust, or modify an OER. The right to remix a resource, and the right to redistribute or share copies of an OER. This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

Permission ≠ Ability “While open licenses provide users with legal permission to engage in the 5 R activities, many open content publishers make technical choices that interfere with a user’s ability to engage in those same activities.” This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

Notice Only sharing PDFs is often good enough, but please do share source documents when possible. CC licenses mean that users do not need to ask permission to use a resource, they should not need to ask for source documents. If OER users don’t need to ask for permission, they shouldn’t need to ask for source documents either. Source documents can be Markdown files, HTML, PressBooks, any editable file format.

ALMS Framework Access to Editing Tools Level of Expertise Required Meaningfully Editable Self-Sourced Though it is part of the Open Content Definition, it is often overlooked. The ALMS Framework is made up of four questions to ask ourselves when creating OER to ensure that we are creating resources that are as open as possible. This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

ALMS A. Access to Editing Tools: Is the open content published in a format that can only be revised or remixed using tools that are extremely expensive or exotic? The first is a question about editing tools. Am I making content that can only be revised or reused using expensive of exotic software? IF yes the content is probably not as open as it could be. Is the software required to modify an OER expensive or proprietary? Does it run only on an unfamiliar or inaccessible operating system? This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

ALMS L. Level of Expertise Required: Is the open content published in a format that requires a significant amount of technical expertise to revise or remix? The second, does the software require expertise beyond that which an average OER creator might have? Does it require using a command line for example. Is the software difficult to use for the average user? Does it require training, use of a command line This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

ALMS M. Meaningfully Editable: Is the open content published in a manner that makes it essentially impossible to revise or remix? The third question is the content meaningfully editable? I’ve seen “open courseware” that were scanned, handwritten notes that are themselves not meaningfully editable. Is the content meaningfully editable? For example, does it contain scanned images of handwriting? This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

ALMS S. Self-Sourced: Is the format preferred for consuming the open content the same format preferred for revising or remixing the open content? The last question of the ALMS frame work is, it the format the preferred format for both consuming, and editing the content? That is, is it self-sourced? If not, it is probably not as open as it could be. HTML can be consumed in a web brwoser, but that same HTML file can be meaninguflly edited in a text editor. This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

ALMS The ALMS Framework is a guide which aims to maximize how OER users can engage with open content. “not an argument for ‘dumbing’ down all open content to plain text. Rather it is an invitation to open content publishers to be thoughtful in the technical choices they make . . .” The ALMS framework is essentially the second half of the Open Content Definition. It is a guide that aims to make sure that OER is created in a way that is as open as possible. Wiley does say that it is not an argument for distilling OER down to plain text, but rather an invitation to be thoughtful in the technical choices made while creating OER. This material is based on original writing by David Wiley, which was published freely under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license at http://opencontent.org/definition/.

Markdown Markdown is a minimalistic markup language intended to be an easy-to-read and easy-to-write plain text format that can be converted to structurally valid HTML. Originally released in 2004 by John Gruber I’m going to directly contradict what Wiley said about distilling open content to plain text, by proposing that we author OER in Markdown. Markdown is a minimalistic markup language that is intended to be easy to read, easy to wirte and that can be converted to structually valid HTML. https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

Text Editors The software required to write markdown is already on your computer. On Windows Notepad is a text editor that can be use to write Markdown, Text edit on Macs, and if you are interested in a more fully features text editor that supports plugins that enable functionality such as preview, syntax highlighting, you might be interested in Notepad++ and Atom. Both open source and free.

Headings Being True to the 5Rs: ## Publishing OER That Are Easy to Reuse and Remix ### Cody Taylor Being True to the 5Rs: Publishing OER That Are Easy to Reuse and Remix Cody Taylor

Formatting This is **bold** text. This is *italicized* text. This is bold text. This is italicized text.

Links This text is a link. Click it  This text is a link. Click it

Not Self-Sourced (sort of) A Markdown document is likely not something you would distribute to your students, but it can be converted into several formats which you are likely already publishing some of which are self-sourced. MD can act as the source of self-sourced formats Though it is meant to be easy to read, markdown documents are not really consumable. But they are very easy to edit and they can be converted to several formats. So they are not self-sourced as wiley suggests in the Open Content definition, but they can act as the source of self sourced formats.

No math or equation support Limited styling options if any Proprietary Many Markdown conversion tools only exist as command line tools and can be difficult to use and therefore don’t fit into the ALMS framework. Online Markdown editors do exist that in my experience have shortcomings that make them ill-equipped for creating open content: Only output PDFs No math or equation support Limited styling options if any Proprietary There is one problem with Markdown and that is that it can be difficult to convert. Many conversion tools for converting MD need to be used through the command line. There are online MD editors that are easy to use but fall short in one way or another in terms of publishing OER. One of which that is very important is that and OER authoring workflow must be able to handle equations.

https://tools.libraries.ou.edu/markdown At OU libraries we are piloting a web interface to what is probably the most capable markdown conversion tool, Pandoc. To use it you write a Markdown document, and

MD Converter: Pandoc + PDF Generator The Markdown Converter uses HTML as an intermediate format meaning that the following output formats can be styles with CSS: HTML EPUB PDF

Not THE answer, an option Markdown forces authors to write well structured documents which make them very portable. No matter the authoring tool being used, all OER should be well formatted in order to be as portable as possible. CC licenses give permission to modify resources, but often not the ability. Be sure to share source documents if not self-sourced.

Try Markdown Markdown, Gruber: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ Markdown Tutorial: http://commonmark.org/help/ OTN Authoring Open Textbooks: https://press.rebus.community/authoropen/chapter/case-study-university-of-oklahoma-libraries/

Emerging Technologies Librarian Contact Cody Taylor Emerging Technologies Librarian codyalantaylor@ou.edu @OKCody_