The conversation about open educational resources (OER) has often centered around the economic imperative for moving away from expensive required texts to free digital resources. The primary argument is typically one of access: textbooks cost too much, and low-income students have to choose between buying textbooks and other critical living expenses. For more than a decade, that affordability argument carried the cause forward, through faculty skepticism and legislative debate and the slow-moving nature of change that is characteristic of higher education.
A new report released today by the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) suggests OER adoption is not just a cost-saving resource, but a high-impact institutional practice.
The study, the largest of its kind to date, drew on nearly 700,000 student records across 15 institutions representing six Carnegie classifications, supplemented by qualitative data from more than 200 instructors. What the researchers found is that OER implementation not only removes financial burdens from low-income students but moves the needle on student success in ways that can't be explained by cost savings alone. The researchers found that for community colleges, doctoral institutions, and tribal colleges and particular, student withdrawal rates fell when institutions implemented OER. For historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), regional public 4-year institutions, and private 4-year institutions, the impact was net neutral.
However, the proportion of students earning A grades rose in every context examined. For community college students who took longer than four years to complete their credentials — a population that tends to carry a heavier load of financial, familial, and institutional obstacles — taking at least one OER course was associated with finishing nearly half a year sooner. For students who took six or more courses with OERs, that reduction stretched to almost a full year.
The findings held with particular force for students navigating multiple compounding disadvantages: those who were Pell-eligible, first-generation, part-time, over 25, or from historically underserved racial and ethnic groups. These are students for whom any single structural barrier can cascade into withdrawal, delay, or departure. Removing one of those barriers — cost, or the particular anxiety of not having materials on the first day of class while financial aid clears — may be enough to change a trajectory.
"One aspect that was surprising is that the impact differs based upon the type of institution. There’s nuance," said Dr. C. Edward Watson, vice president for digital innovation at AAC&U and one of the report's authors. "Of course, not all students and their needs and goals are the same, so maybe this isn’t terribly surprising, but discovering the differences between these subgroups of students was truly interesting to discern."
But the report surfaces a question it doesn't fully resolve: what is happening at the cognitive level when students learn from screens instead of pages?
Watson said that while an OER license does not prohibit students or instructors from printing the materials if they choose, faculty members should be thinking about deep reading and learning regardless of the medium.
"Reading is a component of the learning process but is not the whole process," Watson said via email. "Some studies of digital vs paper reading treat the act of reading as if it's the entirety of the learning process."
Still, the correlation between OER adoption and key student success indicators in the cross-sector study suggests an "array of benefits possible as a result of OER adoption, and they address some of the grand challenges of educational institutions: learning, student debt, access, student success metrics, and more," Watson said.
