E-Text Research Project Results & Recommendations

presented to the CSU Advisory Committee for Services to Students with Disabilities

November 22, 2002

Project TeamMary Cheng, CSU HaywardAnne Judd, CSU Hayward

Penny Peterson, CSU Long BeachJeff Senge, CSU Fullerton

Jeniffer Wellington, CSU Hayward

Phase 1- Survey Results Number by Disability.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Visual LD Mobility*

Total Students

*: number my reflect all students with mobility impairments rather than only those eligible for alternative format services

Students provided e-Text by Quarter or Semester

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fall 2001 Winter 2002 Spring 2002

Students

Fall and Spring are combined quarter and semester school numbers.

One school, Pomona, accounted for approximately 50% of all students served over the 3 periods.

Number of e-Text Textbooks

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fall 2001 Winter2002

Spring2002

Total Books

Fall and Spring show both quarter and semester school numbers

Cal Poly Pomona represents approximately 40% of all textbooks done

Number of eText ProductionFall 2001 through 10/31/02

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fall 2001 Spring 2001 Fall 2002

Percent Increase StateWide

• Books Produced– Fall 2001 191

– Spring 2002 389

– Fall 2002 328

• Percent Change– Fall to Spring 104%

– Fall to Fall 72%

Fall 2002 numbers are through 10/31 only

eText Costs as Percentage of Total Alt Format Costs for 2001-02

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000

All Alt Formats eText Only

Campus Tot on Alt Format Total on eText

Dominguez Hills $18,800 $5,300

Fresno $45,645 $826

Fullerton $106,600*(no info on other alt media costs)

$106,600

Hayward $34,958 $2,890

Los Angeles $47,101 $33,673

Long Beach $40,299 $21,415

Northridge $61,471 $39,342

Pomona $157,200 $93,000

Sacramento $67,528 $57,974

SFSU $56,080 $21,020

San Jose $85,230 $69,700

SLO $25,162 $4,931

Sonoma $1,373 $0

Chico $22,150 $6,850

Bakersfield $29,315 $5,900

Total $798,912 $469,421

Reported cost of e-text as percentage of total cost for alternative formats for 2001-2002

58%

Based on 15 campus responses

Distribution of Cost

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Staff Costs Hardware Software Misc

All Alternative Format eText

Editing Steps Taken

• All 9 Campuses checked for accuracy and usability

• 7 of 9 campuses checked for compatibility with AT

• 6 of 9 campuses restructured tables

• 4 of 7 campuses insert page numbers

• 3 of 7 campuses describe figures

Average Cost per Book

• Fullerton

– 91 books (72 native; 19 publisher)

– $106,600

– $1171 per book

• San Jose

– 68 books (18 native; 50 publishers)

– $69,700

– $1025 book

• Long Beach– 59 books (58 native; 1

publisher)– $21,415– $363 per book

• Pomona– 236 books (201 native; 35

publisher)– $125,000– $ 530 per book

• LA– 47 books (18 native; 29

publisher– $33,674– $716 per book

Publisher files account for 27%

Number of e-Text Textbooks Obtained from Publishers for 11 campuses, 2001-2002

• San Jose50

• Pomona 35

• LA 29

• Fullerton 19

• Sacramento 11

• SF 11

• SLO 4

• San Diego 2

• Hayward 3

• Long Beach 1

Time for Delivery

• Average Time for Delivery from Publishers4 – 5 weeks

• Percentage of time delivered in a timely manner

64%

Further Study

• Readiness of individual campuses to engage in e-text production & implementation of AB 422

• Variation of cost per book

• Variation in publisher response by campus

Phase II – Best Practices

2 meetings held Oct. 16 & 17 of CSU alt media specialists during CAPED

Over 15 people in attendance

13 campuses were represented

Best Practices Meeting Outcomes

• Established standards subgroup to recommend standards regarding format, editing, and timeliness to facilitate the sharing of files and working with publishers.

• Develop a standardized set of procedures for the CSU• Develop and adopt a common tracking database

(standard fields from which systemwide information can be compiled and from which a centralized website of titles can be created.)

• Explore leveraging CSU buying power to drive down prices of assistive technology (hardware and software), scanners, RFB & D membership

Phase III – Study of Models to Share E-Texts

Three models being explored:

1. Alternate Media Exchange (AMX)

2. Alternate Text Production Center (ATPC)

3. Bookshare.org

Model 1

• Alternate Media Exchange

Database of book titles and institutions in possession of the file. Currently over 500 titles. E-texts scanned by community colleges will be posted to the AMX. Database maintained by the High Tech Center of the Community Colleges. Participation based on reciprocity.

Model 2

• Alternate Text Production Center (ATPC) – the planned central point of contact with publishers in the implementation of AB 422 for the Community College system. E-text repository is operational. Also production center for Braille. (visit completed)

Model 3

• Bookshare.org – web based repository of e-texts based on a self-service model where registered participants (who are certified with a disability) can pull down e-texts from the website and also post books that have been scanned. (detailed information and possible ways to collaborate received over email, visit TBA)

Next Steps

• Meeting of the standard subgroup (January 2002)To be planned --• Meeting with Community Colleges and the UC

representatives to explore common solutions • Meeting with publishers and other allies (bookstore,

library) to explore issues and solutions. • Draft proposal of e-text strategy to DSS Directors at its

March meeting; • Present proposal to the Advisory Committee at its Spring

meeting

Strategy: Mainstreaming Accessibility

Mainstream the CSU’s accessibility efforts to providealternate text formats:• By embedding accessibility and e-text solutions into the

newly launched CSU initiative on Academic Technology Strategy

• By integrating accessibility and alternate text formats within traditional librarian functions

• By leveraging the influence of the bookstores with publisher contacts

• By enlisting the assistance of the faculty to adopt practices that are accessibility-friendly

Recommendations• The Advisory Committee would request advice from the Office of General Counsel regarding

potential liability issues in the CSU’s participation with Bookshare.org as well liability issues when sharing e-text that are generated from publisher files.

• The Advisory Committee would request from the CSU campus bookstores a vendor list of publishers ranked by volumes purchased and by dollar spent in a comma delimited file.

• The Advisory Committee would request a seat at the Academic Technology Strategy planning table to ensure that accessibility requirements and universal design concepts are appropriately included within the system-wide academic technology strategy.

• The CO DSS program staff would begin to engage in a dialogue with the Council of Library Directors regarding the integration of accessibility requirements and library functional responsibilities.

• The CO DSS program staff in collaboration with the DSS directors would develop an educational piece to faculty senates regarding practices that are accessibility-friendly.

• The CO DSS program staff would explore leveraging CSU buying power to drive down prices of assistive technology (hardware and software), scanners, RFB & D membership and/or CSU’s participation in the Community College Foundation.