It’s widely understood that while faculty select the textbooks their students use, faculty neither pay for nor use textbooks. The fact that faculty don’t have to pay for the books they select is reflected by the data in the recent Babson survey showing that less than 3% of faculty feel that cost is an important factor to consider when selecting instructional materials. The fact that faculty don’t use (or even read) the textbooks they assign students is reflected in the countless student comments on end of course review forms each year complaining that the content of faculty lectures are frequently unrelated to the content of assigned textbook readings. But – while faculty frequently don’t use the textbooks, they almost always use the materials that publishers give them (for free) when they adopt a textbook – test item banks, presentation slides, video clips, etc.

Although I’m not yet persuaded that this will happen, there is an interesting future possibility here. As more and more faculty adopt OER, publishers will lose their ability to subsidize the creation of free faculty materials (like test item banks) through profits from textbook sales to students. This creates the interesting possibility that, as increasing proportions of students use OER, publishers might scale back their creation of textbooks and scale up their production of supplementary materials which they sell directly to faculty. This would create a true “market” in materials where the people who are choosing the product are also the ones who are paying for and using the product. There would be competition, and market forces, and a reason for publishers to innovate. Imagine if publishers had to change from persuading faculty to make a choice, to convincing faculty to make a purchase. Ah yes, an actual market. That would be interesting indeed.

It probably won’t happen, but it’s interesting to think about.

{ 3 comments }

The Babson OER Survey is incredible. If you care at all about OER, you absolutely need to read it. Then go read what Phil has written at e-Literate and 20 Million Minds. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

The popular media will no doubt focus on the awareness findings in the report. On the most liberal measure of awareness, 65.9% faculty are completely unaware of OER. On a stricter measure, 73.6% of faculty are completely unaware. Phil characterizes these awareness findings as bad news for OER advocates in his 20MM article. He’s right, but for a far deeper reasons than he suggests. These awareness findings are bad news for OER advocates because it means there is still a huge window for traditional publishers to organize a massive FUD campaign against OER. If publisher’s can control faculty members’ first exposure to OER and attempt to control the messaging around OER, there may still be a chance for publishers to turn the tide back against OER. And make no mistake, the report clearly shows that the tide has already turned in favor of OER among faculty who are aware of OER. To me, the biggest takeaway from the Babson survey is this question – who will introduce the remaining 66%-75% of this country’s faculty to OER? Haters or advocates?

On the 20MM website, Phil characterizes the following graph as bad news for OER proponents because cost appears at the very bottom of the criteria faculty consider when selecting educational resources:

Selection Criteria

(Well, at least that explains why textbooks are so expensive – less than 3% of faculty consider cost an important factor to consider during the adoption process!)

The “bad news for OER” conclusion is easy to reach if you consider cost savings to be the only significant benefit that OER bring to the table. But of course there’s far more to the OER story than cost savings.

For example, the most important selection criterion identified by faculty in the graph above is proven efficacy. If you review the data tables on page 38 of the report, you’ll see that when faculty who are aware of OER are asked to compare the proven efficacy of OER to traditional textbooks, 16.5% of faculty say OER are superior while only 15.3% say that traditional materials are superior. In other words, once faculty become aware of OER, OER beat traditional textbooks on faculty’s most important selection criteria.

Realizing this, of course I thought we should look at the correlation between where faculty rank the importance of selection criteria and how OER and traditional materials do on those criteria. The following graph plots the percentage of faculty who rate a criterion as Important on the X axis, and the percentage of faculty who rate OER (blue) or traditional materials (red) Superior on the Y axis. (Excel file with raw data)

image001

The trend lines in this graph show the correlation between how important faculty think each selection criterion is and how superior each type of educational material is on that criterion. The news in this graph truly isn’t good for OER – there’s a strong negative correlation between the importance of selection criteria and the superiority of OER on those criteria, while traditional materials have a strong positive correlation with importance. However, a lot of the action in this graph and correlation is driven by outlier criteria like cost, which less than 3% of faculty think are important.

What would happen if we plot these values again, but only include the top half of the selection criteria as rated by importance? In other words, what if we only look at the selection criteria that at least 14% of faculty agree are important? It becomes a very different story:

image002

When you look at the correlation between superiority of resource types and the selection criteria faculty care most about, faculty perceptions of OER correlate positively, while faculty perceptions of traditional textbooks actually correlate negatively with the criteria they self-report as being most important. Neither of these correlations is incredibly strong, but the directions flip-flop nonetheless.

This is why, as Phil writes on e-Literate,

Once you present OER to faculty, there’s a real affinity and alignment of OER with faculty values. Jeff [Seaman, co-author of report] was surprised more about the potential of OER than he had thought going in. Unlike other technology-based subjects of BSRG studies, there is almost no suspicion of OER. Everything else BSRG has measured has had strong minority views from faculty against the topic (online learning in particular), with incredible resentment detected. This resistance or resentment is just not there with OER. It is interesting for OER, with no organized marketing plan per se, to have no natural barriers from faculty perceptions.

Combine the fact that OER are superior to traditional materials on the selection criteria faculty care most about with this quote from the Babson report:

“When faculty members that are not current users of open educational resources were asked if they expected to be using OER in the next three years, a majority (77.5%) reported that they either expected to use OER or would consider consider using OER.” (p. 31)

Many people think my prediction that “80% of all US general education courses will be using OER instead of publisher materials by 2018″ is crazy talk. But it isn’t. It’s not crazy at all. OER align better with faculty’s top adoption priorities than traditional materials do, and the majority of current non-users will try OER between now and 2017:

3 years

Things are looking very good for OER. Which means that things are looking very good for students – let’s not forget which is the means and which is the end here.

While things are looking good, advocates of improving student learning and increasing affordability can’t sit back. Remember the quote (disputedly) attributed to Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” As I warned at the very top, the awareness findings of the Babson survey indicate that publishers may still have an opportunity to protect their market through a campaign of mockery, scorn, and other FUD – somewhere in the transition between Gandhi’s laughing and fighting. Now is the time for advocates of improving student learning and increasing affordability – and hence, advocates of OER – to be on the offensive with honest, positive messages about OER.

{ 6 comments }

During conversations this week at the semi-annual meeting of the Shuttleworth Foundation Fellows, I was struck by (what is for me) a new way of contextualizing and understanding “open” – as one of a long line of technological innovations that radically improve productivity.

History is filled with technological innovations that have increased our “productivity,” making it significantly less expensive for us to engage in some activity than it had been prior to the innovation. I have often thought of open as being part of the family tree of information technology innovations that includes inventions like writing, the printing press, computers, and the internet. But my previous conceptualization of these inventions was limited to a general notion of “inventions that enable us do that we couldn’t before.” This framing does not explicitly consider their impact of open on our productivity in a market sense. It was the juxtaposition of a conversation about sustainability with Fellows Peter Bloom and Johnny West against Jeremy Rifkin’s The Zero Marginal Cost Society, which I recently finished reading, that really catalyzed this new perspective.

Specifically, it hit me as I listened to Peter talk about his work with Rhizomatica, a project that provides open source cellular infrastructure and service in rural Mexico. As opposed to the proprietary approach to cellular infrastructure, in which it might cost a $100,000 to put up a radio tower, Rhizomatica can put up a radio tower based on open source software for about $7500. As opposed to a traditional monthly cellphone bill of $100 or more, Rhizomatica provides cell service for $1.70 per month.

Listening to him talk I was reminded of my own work with Lumen. Whereas it can easily cost a traditional publisher $250,000 to create a textbook under the incumbent, royalty-based content model, we can facilitate faculty creating an OER-based replacement for that textbook for under $10,000. And rather than producing an end product that can cost students $200 or more, we can provide hosting, integration, and support for that OER-based textbook replacement for $5.

In both these cases – textbooks and cellular service – open approaches create productivity gains ranging between one and two orders of magnitude in size. Orders of magnitude – meaning they make it between 10x and 100x cheaper than the incumbent way of doing things.

I was already intimately aware of the orders of magnitude impact open can have on the cost of textbooks. But seeing it mirrored back almost perfectly in the case of cell phone infrastructure and service unlocked something for me. One instance is an anomaly, but two starts to look like a trend.

If open can create these orders of magnitude productivity gains in the cases of both textbooks and cellular service, where else does it create them? A second’s reflection surfaces cases like writing software and encyclopedias… But those kinds of examples weren’t what was setting my radar off. There’s something about the idea of cellular service falling pray to these orders of magnitude productivity gains from open (OMPGO for brevity) that feels like a virus jumping from one species to another. Cell service isn’t the kind of thing that’s supposed to be susceptible to OMPGO, at least not intuitively. Something serious is going on here.

Upon reflection I’ve slowly been having this species-jumping realization in my own little microcosm of focus, education. Textbooks are intuitively susceptible to OMPGO, but learning outcomes, assessments, and credentials are not. The extension of open and, consequently OMPGO, to the fundamental pieces necessary to engage in education – learning outcomes, content, assessments, and credentials – makes up what I call the open education infrastructure. The potential impacts of the open education infrastructure on primary, secondary, and higher education are endless. What would our institutions and practices look like if they could be built upon freely available, openly licensed sets of learning outcomes, textbook replacements, assessments, and credentialing mechanisms? What types of alternatives to our traditional institutions would emerge in this fertile ground in which experimentation and innovation becomes orders of magnitude less expensive?

But cellular service… Where else can OMPGO travel? A second conversation with Peter later in the week suggested that it is already impacting energy, clean water, and a range of other functions at the foundation of society. In addition to the open education infrastructure, do we dare begin talking about the open society infrastructure? This got me thinking of Marcin, a Shuttleworth Fellowship alum who is creating the Global Village Construction Set, an open source platform that allows for the easy fabrication of the 50 industrial machines necessary to build a small civilization with modern comforts. Each of his designs bares the characteristic OMPGO signature of being orders of magnitude less expensive than their commercial counterparts (e.g., their open source tractor).

If OMPGO can work its magic on energy, clean water, machines, telecommunications, and education, where else can it go? What kind of matrix or framework could we build that might help us identify other OMPGO opportunities?

Little would make me happier than a fully developed open education infrastructure operating as part of a broader open infrastructure supporting an advanced society – where power, water, phone, internet, education, and other key infrastructure pieces were 10x – 100x less expensive than they are now. What a world that would be! Wouldn’t you like to be part of creating that world?

Postscript.

At the bottom of the OMPGO phenomenon lies a technological innovation called the open license. Open licenses stand in clear opposition to the ultimate viral copyright machinery, the Berne Convention, which automatically forces copyright onto each and every creative work whether the author desires it or not. Rather than envisioning a society built exclusively on protections and royalties, as Berne does, open licenses enable a society also built on sharing and cooperation. (And importantly, these two visions of society are not incompatible – the Internet, unarguably the biggest engine of the modern market, is built almost entirely on an infrastructure comprised of open source software.)

While it’s contours are still blurry, I can see in the far distance a vision of an entire society built more fully on open infrastructure, with the impact of OMPGO spread generously throughout every sector. It takes my breath away. For now, I’ll keep chipping away on the education part of the problem with the Lumen team and others in the space. But WOW there is so much work to do, in so many different spaces, and so much yet for us to learn from each other across spaces. My conversations with Peter and others at the Shuttleworth meeting helped me appreciate that more than ever.

{ 2 comments }