Good morning @feb21-cohort! We’ll be meeting in a few hours to talk about a few different kinds of review and how feedback can take your OER projects to the next level.
Take a look at the slides and handout for this session:
See you all soon!
Hi everyone, I hope you’re all having a good end to the week. As usual, I’m passing on the chat transcript and a brief recap of our session this Tuesday.
I wanted to pause and say thank you to you all for the feedback about the program so far. @me.monicabrown and I are doing some thinking about how to integrate some of your suggestions into our current program structure. If you have more to share, please do let us know.
Resources
- Transforming Humanities Texts: Join the Team!
- Writing and Publishing in Digital Environments: Now Inviting Contributors Across Disciplines!
- Liquid Margins 21: Social Annotations Online and On-campus (featuring @misbell)
- CFP for OE Global (thanks for the heads-up @stacy.katz)
-
Making Classrooms Antiracist with OER and Open Pedagogy - I’ll add in addition to this resource that @woodcockd shared:
- Social justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (“S-JEDI”) group resources - readings/workshop model that you could use with your own faculty/educators
- Resources for fighting racism in publishing and pedagogy
- It’s (Not) in The Reading: American Government Textbooks’ Limited Representation of Historically Marginalized Groups (thanks Stacy)
- Brandon University (BU) Cares (thanks @mcdougallc )
- The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy
- Accessibility Assessments (fyi - @harriet.fayne, sorry I missed this question in the chat ):
- Writing statements and an example statement from Math for the Trades and the Rebus Guide
- Digital content accessibility checklist
Stacy - it looks like the examples of the book under going open peer review is no longer on the link you shared. Do you know if the review period is closed? Or have another example, perhaps?
Recap
Feedback and review is a chance for you to share your book with subject experts and ensure that the content is appropriate, accurate, and adequately covers the material. Collaborators will read through content and provide critical suggestions to improve the resource for its intended audience. The presence of review on your OER signals to a prospective adopter that the work has passed through rigorous quality control, and that its content is suitable for use in the classroom. In so doing, it acts as good advertising for the efficacy of your resource.
We’ve identified different types of review processes that can be carried out on your book:
- Peer review (pre-publication): It is conducted by subject-matter experts and is a common marker that ensures quality of educational content. It can be a prerequisite for adoption or even submission to repositories. We group peer review into anonymous (most traditional, has prestige value to some groups), non-anonymous (lets you credit reviewers and set up a dialogue with authors, and open (most transparent & collaborative, letting others join in).
- Accessibility review: All creators should ideally find an accessibility practitioner to conduct a set of final checks on the books to see what accessibility standards are met, and to identify areas for improvement.
- Classroom review: Think of this as a trial run of your resource in the classroom setting, and an opportunity to include student voices in the publishing process. Feedback can be gathered both from the instructor using the book to teach as well as the students using the book to learn. Try to identify some academic and non-academic measures as you gather comments from the classroom.
- Feedback via project discussion: All resources should contain a pathway for anyone to provide feedback about the book. These openings may even help recruit other collaborators to work on revisions and other post-publication tasks.
- Post-publication review: These can be collected in repositories, journals, from adopters, and are important to show that the book is being used and having an impact. They are also extremely helpful to promote further improvement of the book and more adoptions, especially if posted on a public site.
With each type of review, you should adequately prepare for the process prior to recruiting reviewers. Collaborate with your existing team to confirm what you would like to get out of each type of review. Once you have your reviewers confirmed, managing the process is fairly straightforward. The review process doesn’t end once reviewers hand in their feedback — we suggest you thank reviewers and keep them engaged and enthusiastic about the resource (take a look at the slides for more details). At heart, review is about bringing more hands on deck to invest in your resource and help it grow with their feedback and input.
@apurva here’s the google doc for the open peer review - Intersections of OER and Information Literacy_ACRL PIL Open Peer Review - Google Docs They require a login for the review.
@misbell I heard back from Matt Gold about posting your call. He asked if you have an email that he can simply forward or cut-and-paste. He can share with the DH program at the GC and suggested the CUNY Digital Humanities Initiative group on the CUNY Academic Commons, NYCDH, DH Slack. If you have an email he can forward, I can pass that along 
1 Like
Thanks, Stacy! Looks like an interesting book 
