Good morning, and welcome to Thursday, October 24. Rick Seltzer wrote today’s Briefing. Julia Piper compiled Comings and Goings. Get in touch: dailybriefing@chronicle.com.
Free, fee, or both?
Mounting pressures, including competition from free-to-use educational resources, prompted publishers to ask colleges to bundle course-material charges with student tuition and fees.
Our Taylor Swaak asks if campuses can weave together two strategies for textbooks.
Open educational resources enjoyed a moment. The openly licensed, often free-to-use course materials known as OER drew support as a counter to high textbook prices. Backers also tout the fact they can be shared and modified, enabling instructors to add references to current events or tweak content to make it more relevant to students.
But publishers convinced many colleges to charge students for course-material bundles. “Inclusive access” and “equitable access” models lump the cost of textbooks into the tuition and fees students pay, often charging a flat rate by credit hour. Supporters argue this guarantees students will have the materials they need for class.
OER is left facing headwinds, at least according to indicators of faculty mindset and institutional behavior:
- Faculty members’ awareness of OER dropped by 8 percentage points in 2023-24, a recent survey from Bay View Analytics found, marking the first time in almost a decade that awareness didn’t increase from the year prior.
- Almost half of all degree-granting institutions adopted some version of inclusive access, the Association of American Publishers says.
Structural advantages favor publishers’ equitable-access model. Students pay course-material fees by default, though they can opt out. They can only access materials for a short time, removing sales competition from secondhand use.
OER faces more challenges. Open materials aren’t available for many classes, particularly upper-level and humanities courses. OER is often funded by one-time grants, meaning money isn’t available to incentivize faculty members to update materials. And even at many equitable-access colleges that offer OER classes, students who don’t proactively opt out end up paying publishers’ fees for materials that might otherwise be free.
Is a hybrid model possible? Some experts hope so, but it would require nuanced contracts and improved transparency for students. Here’s how colleges might do it:
- Play hardball with publishers: At least two colleges signed deals that didn’t charge students for credits in courses that use only OER. Faculty members who use OER might give institutions leverage to negotiate lower fees.
- Give students more information, fast: The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs’ learning-management system has a “personalized value sheet” detailing the materials students will need for their courses, the retail prices, and what they’d pay if they remain opted in to equitable-access plans.
- Use equitable-access revenue to subsidize OER: The University of California at Davis has transferred almost $300,000 since 2020 into efforts that include honoraria for instructors who revise, create, use, or share OER.
The bigger picture: The resource-intensive work of combining the best of OER and textbooks-as-a service would be a Herculean task for any one college, because the interests of administrators, publishers, faculty members, and students don’t align. Some colleges will land on clever one-off models, but federal policy stands a better chance of shaping larger market trends.