Presentation to the Charleston conference on the library's role in providing affordable textbooks to college students.

1. The Library’s Opportunity in
Affordable Textbooks
Charleston Library Conference
November 8, 2018
Joseph J. Esposito, Moderator
Senior Partner
Clarke & Esposito

2. Panelists
• Mark McBride, Library Senior Strategist, SUNY
• Mark Cummings, Editor and Publisher, Choice (ACRL)
• Gwen Evans, Executive Director, OhioLINK

3. SUNY OER
November 2018
Charleston Conference
Mark McBride,
Library Senior Strategist

5. Preliminary and
| 5
Kaleidoscope grant
enables Tompkins-
Cortland to convert
Psychology and
Math courses to
open resources
Student Assembly
and Faculty Senate
pass resolutions to
improve textbook
costs
SUNY hires
executive director
of OER Services
State of NY
awards $4
million each to
SUNY and
CUNY for OER
efforts; renewed
in 2018
First CUNY and
SUNY Showcase in
NYC
With Lumen
Learning, SUNY
libraries design and
deploy a service
model to increase
faculty participation
in OER
The OER road so far …
5 SUNY community
colleges awarded
Achieving the Dream
grant to create six full
degree programs
using only OER
OER task group
defines OER
Success
Framework to
assess institutional
readiness for OER
implementation
2011 2012
2013-
14
2017 2017201620152015 2016
Open SUNY
textbook pilots
establish an OER
community of
practice among
libraries

6. Preliminary and
| 6
We had a great AY 2017-2018 of OER growth!
69,000+ students
participated in an OER
course
2,600+ different course
sections in OER
44 campuses reporting OER
data
Almost 600 different course
titles
$7.8 M saved
Educational impact still being
measured. Open Education
Research Lab at Buffalo
SOURCE: © Nikolaev, © Photoworld, © Meanev, © Idrutu, © Palto | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

7. Preliminary and
| 7
Projections based on AY 2018-2019 of OER growth!
74,000+ students
participated in an OER
course
3,100+ different course
sections in OER
58 campuses reporting OER
data
Development of New OER
OER Degree Programs
$8 M saved
Research: Faculty &
Students Claim OER Equal
or Better than Trad Mat.
SOURCE: © Nikolaev, © Photoworld, © Meanev, © Idrutu, © Palto | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

8. Preliminary and
| 8
The SUNY OER Services Infrastructure

9. Preliminary and
| 9
We have high aspirations for SUNY OER going forward
Increase Access
• Reduce textbook costs
• Improve completions
• Reduce Withdrawals
Improve Learning
• Better outcomes
• New methodologies
(Open Pedagogy)
• Continuous Quality
Improvement
Be A Global Leader
• Adoption
• Innovation
• Part of Broader Scholarly
Communication Agenda
SOURCE: © Winterling, © Frenc, © Sqback | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

10. Preliminary and
| 10
Professional Development ---> Long Term Goals

11. Preliminary and
| 11
Inclusive Access not the Enemy, but not the Solution
● Our funding based on supporting OER adoptions in high enrollment,
General Education Courses
● Some of our campuses are pressure testing inclusive access packages,
separate from this program
● We think OER is not the innovation, but the vehicle to innovation in
classroom
● From cease and desist letters to partnerships ---- we are open to
publisher solutions, but we no longer seek vendor relationships, we want
strong partnerships
● What role can our university presses play?

12. Preliminary and
| 12
OER Foundation to an Open Ecosystem

15. Preliminary and
| 15
What is the long game?

17. From Affordable to Open:
Evaluating Open Educational Resources
17

18. Course Materials Adoption:
A Choice Survey of Undergraduate Instructors
• Deployed/Responded: 88,000/1,400
• 4-Year/2-Year: 48%/52%
• Public/Private: 83%/17%
• Instructional Fields
• STEM 47%
• Humanities: 30%
• Social Sciences: 22%
• Other: 5%
• Course Levels
• 58% Introductory
• 29% 200-300 level
• 13% Upper-level undergraduate
Two-thirds use at
least some OER
Types of Instructional Materials Used
18
Virtually all use at least
some commercial
materials
http://choice360.org/librarianship/whitepaper

19. • The difference between OER and merely “open” materials was not always clear to
the respondents
• OER??
• TED talks
• YouTube videos
• Library holdings
• Open-access journals
• e-Books
• Khan Academy
• “Websites”
• Free apps
But . . .
19

20. • Peer recommendations, search, and reviews are the most important tools for the
discovery of new materials for classroom instruction
I. Discovery
“If the materials adopted for any of your courses were previously unknown to you, how did you discover
them?”
Instructors using commercial materials Instructors using all or some OER
20
Search

21. • Among instructors using all or some
OER, affordability is the key factor in
motivating the selection of course
materials, second only to the quality
of the materials themselves
• Librarian recommendations rank at
the bottom, in percentage terms, of
factors influencing the adoption of
course materials
II. Selection
“How important are each of the following
factors in selecting OER for your courses?”

21

22. • Among instructors using commercial
materials, affordability is no less a
factor, second again only to the
quality of the materials themselves
• Librarian recommendations again
rank near the bottom, in percentage
terms, of factors influencing the
adoption of course materials
But . . .
22
“How important are each of the following
factors in selecting materials for your courses?”


23. III. Core Materials
Instructional materials used by instructors
using all or some OER
Instructional materials used by all
instructors
• Textbooks constitute the core of all course-material adoptions
23

24. Some Observations
• At this point, OER selection is based more on affordability than ideological
commitment
• OER appear to be selected more often as one-to-one replacements for
commercial textbooks than as components of open education
• Given this, for those concerned to assert the value of open educational
resources, affordability can no longer be the strategy of choice
• Strategy must focus on the quality and availability (ease of discovery) of
the instructional materials
24

25. Three Levels of “Open”
• Faculty and students collaborate to create their own
learning content that is then openly shared and
further developed by others
• Materials may be freely modified, edited, and
redistributed in accordance with the needs of
individual student instruction
• Materials may be discovered, accessed, and used at
no cost, free from significant licensing or technical
impediments
Open Education
Retain, Reuse, Revise,
Remix, Redistribute
Affordable,
Accessible
How do we get from affordable to open education?
25

26. The Role of Reviews
• For OER to become accepted as alternatives to commercial works,
it is essential that their quality be equal to or better than that of
their commercial counterparts
• Reviews play a dual roll in the adoption process
• As discovery tool
• As proxy for peer recommendations
26

27. The Choice OER Review Template
27
• Review Parameters
• Format and source
• Provenance
• Subject matter
• Target audience
• Licensing
• Accessibility
• Adaptability
• Content quality
• Pedagogy
• Interface design
• Ancillary materials
• Competing works

28. • Bell, Steven. Course Materials Adoption: A Faculty Survey and Outlook for the
OER Landscape (Choice white paper #3)
• http://choice360.org/librarianship/whitepaper
• Choice OER review template
• http://choice360.org/openchoice
Mark Cummings
Editor and Publisher
mcummings@ala-choice.org
+1 860.347.6933 x119
Thank you
28

29. How Libraries Can Lead

30. OhioLINK membership
• 118 libraries
• 90 institutions
• 600,000 students, faculty and
staff
• State Library of Ohio
• Cleveland Clinic
• More info at ohiolink.edu

31. Why Libraries?

33. Ohio’s Governor
proposes legislation
that requires public
higher education
institutions to
cover all textbook
costs minus a
$300 flat cost to
students.
How OhioLINK Became Involved

34. We kept being asked, “Can’t you do
something about the cost of textbooks?”
We could. And we did.

35. Why Inclusive Access?
• Model does not require faculty to change their
syllabus or materials.
• Depending on institutional capacity and desire,
can implement multiple courses at once.
• Savings can be delivered en masse within
a semester.
• “Rinse and Repeat” process.
• Delivers savings to all students at all levels.

36. Textbook Pricing Agreements
• Signed contracts with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson, Macmillan Learning,
Cengage and SAGE Publishing.
• Estimated potential of $50 million savings per year for
students.
• OhioLINK is working on a business intelligence process
to check prices against the market (VerbaConnect).

37. Negotiated pricing agreements
between OhioLINK and publishers at a
statewide scale.
• Inclusive access only.
• Not a mandate!
• Price agreements only – OhioLINK is not
acquiring content on behalf of members.
• “Net to publisher” pricing (equivalent to
wholesale). Does not and cannot dictate retail
markup at campus bookstores.
• Discounts: Flat price per title for entire catalog or
percent off entire catalog.
• Long term or perpetual access.

38. Publishers control (almost) everything we
care about, regardless of aggregator
(delivery) platform.
Publishers will work with almost any platform
that will deliver their content. (Though they do
have preferences.)
Here’s What We Learned…

39. The Bookstore Will Make or Break You
• Bookstore retail markup ranges from
30% to 10% on textbooks.
• Every campus has its own contract
with bookstores, whether
independent or chain bookstores.
• Revenue sharing with institutions is
part of the deal.
• Exclusive right to provide textbooks at
the institution.

40. “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”
- Bob Butterfield of University of Wisconsin-Stout

41. Questions?
• gwen@ohiolink.edu
• ohiolink.edu
• affordablelearning.ohiolink.edu/Guide
Gwen Evans
Executive Director, OhioLINK

42. Appendix

43. affordablelearning.ohiolink.edu

44. ohiolink.oercommons.org/

45. ohiolink.oercommons.org/hubs/OOEC

46. OhioLINK RFI (Request for Information) Fall 2017
“OhioLINK requests information from potential vendors concerning their interest in and ability to
provide etextbooks on the inclusive access model in a consortial environment... In particular, we
are looking at potential cost savings and efficiencies that can be gained in centralizing services and
negotiations regarding commercial textbook content….
This RFI is intentionally broadly defined, and we encourage respondents to exercise latitude and
suggest new approaches to achieve OhioLINK’s goals. OhioLINK and its institutions envision that
there may be multiple solutions and vendors for subsets of its institutions, depending on their needs
and particular contexts, and do not necessarily anticipate that all of its members will participate in
one solution…
OhioLINK’s member institutions are interested in discounts for student textbooks and titles that are
already in use in member institutions. There is no intent to abrogate faculty freedom to assign
textbooks of their choice. Therefore, vendors who can demonstrate that their content catalogs are
already in wide use in Ohio institutions will have an advantage. “

47. Inclusive
Access
Pros Cons
For
Students
& Faculty
• First Day Access + automatic payment/refund (time
saver)
• Bursar can wait for payment/loans/financial aid
• Price lower than market
• Can opt out (by federal law)
• Faculty know all students have the book at the
beginning of class - and it’s the right book.
• Accommodates distance learners (and international
distance learners)
• Maintains academic freedom for faculty
• Most platforms have some kind of analytics for faculty
• Digital (searchability, portability, some advanced
digital features)
• Digital (preference for print)
• Limits on downloads and
printing
• Limited access period
• May be able to get print for free
or lower price
For
Publishers
• Guaranteed sell-through for 90% of enrollment
• No loss of sales to used print, rentals, piracy
• Analytics for revision/improvement of texts
• Digital is cheaper to produce, higher profit margin
• Guaranteed, predictable revenue from institution.
• ??

48. Inclusive Access Pros Cons
For OhioLINK • Lower prices statewide
• Maintained “student pays” model so
didn’t impact institutional budgets.
• All implementation done by pubs +
bookstores + campuses
• Scope was manageable for OhioLINK –
one model, publishers enthusiastic
about dropping prices.
• Commitment to market/co-market
the model to campuses – more “lift”
than expected
• Textbooks a new model to begin
with; lack of experience
• Institutional Anxiety and lots of it
• Lack of control of retail markup
• Data analysis is formidable

49. For more information about Inclusive Access from various aspects, see this article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/31/textbook-publishers-contemplate-inclusive-access-
business-model-future
For more information about OhioLINK’s hybrid strategy for textbook affordability, see two guest
posts on the Scholarly Kitchen:
Affordable Learning Requires a Diverse Approach, Part 1: Playing the Short Game (and the Long One) to
Secure Savings for Students
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/30/affordable-learning-requires-a-diverse-approach-part-1-
playing-the-short-game-and-the-long-one-to-secure-savings-for-students/
Affordable Learning Requires a Diverse Approach, Part 2: Applying Consortial Power to Leverage Student
Savings
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/31/affordable-learning-requires-a-diverse-approach-part-2-
applying-consortial-power-to-leverage-student-savings/