Categories
learning open content open education

We Should Pause and Ask the Question

There’s a really terrific conversation happening on the cc-openedu listserv. It started out as a question about OER, but has moved on to a conversation about the purposes of open more generally. Dr. Chuck contributed over the weekend, and his contribution provides a great opportunity for me to respond with the first substantive post since I changed the name of the blog.

All the pull quotes in this post are from Dr. Chuck. He writes:

[Y]ou can wave your hands and dream of open content and a complete open source chain of production where the raw material is openly licensed and *everything* in the value chain is also free. I have done this for *one* course – Python for Everybody. If you start with my github repo, you can build an LMS, a web site, an online teaching system, and even a camera ready textbook ready for printing using 100% free software. I use LaTeX and pandoc for the print book – it is perhaps less convenient that [sic] Word but it is free. P.S. I also have a README that tells how to do it.

It is possible with great effort, but there are a number of problems.

First, it is harder to keep a 100% open chain of production from beginning to end – you need solid technical skills and a lot of patience. I have shown 100’s of people my 100% open process – and literally no one has replicated it because it is easier to just fall into the easier path of proprietary approaches.

There is an incredibly important point that I think people frequently miss. We are often told that the most important purpose of being open is to increase access. In theory, when it comes to educational resources nothing could possibly provide more access to more people than openly licensed source code to an LMS, website, online teaching system, and camera ready textbook. It’s got everything you need. You can adapt it any way you like. You can run it anywhere you like. You can use it any way you like. And, in the case of Python, it actually exists – right there in Dr. Chuck’s GitHub repo. 

That’s the theory. But what actually happens in practice? Dr. Chuck tells us that, despite the thousands of hours of time and effort he has invested to both (1) make the full chain of tools and content open and (2) show hundreds of people how to use these tools and content themselves, literally no one has done so. 

We should pause and ask which approach really, truly, provides access to more people – (1) the Python for Everybody GitHub repo with an excellent README and all the 5R permissions or (2) the ready-to-use version of Python for Everybody on Coursera? Empirically speaking, it’s approximately one million times easier to take Python for Everybody on Coursera than it is to install, configure, troubleshoot, and run all these tools yourself. We know this is true because as of March 1, 2021, 985,081 people have enrolled in Python for Everybody on Coursera and remember no one has stood up the tool chain themselves. 

As a 100% open end-to-end person (one of the few) – I get it – and accept that 100% open is always going to be a hard path – it is like being a monk and sleeping on cold stone floors 🙂

I have nothing but respect for Dr. Chuck. There are often sacrifices associated with living according to one’s principles, and he is obviously making them. And the incredible difficulty of this 100% open path should cause us to pause and ask ourselves about the problem we are trying to solve. If the primary goal of being open is to increase access, the Python for Everybody example is extraordinarily interesting. Think about first-generation, minoritized, or otherwise at-risk learners. Think about the (primarily adjunct) faculty who serve them.

Now, sincerely, pause and ask yourself – which provides these students and their faculty with more access – an openly licensed GitHub repo or an easy-to-use offering on Coursera? Even when the Coursera option costs $49 – which provides more access to more people? Really think about it. In terms of raw numbers, how many people who might be interested in learning Python can come up with $49? How many people who might be interested in learning Python can get the 100% open tool chain up and running?

By the way – there is a way to make money on things like printing, hosting, support, etc etc without violating the principle of 100% open. The Occam’s razor is whether someone else can replicate what you are doing if they put their mind to it.

I understand what Dr. Chuck is trying to say here, but I want to point out that someone can always replicate what you’re doing if they put their mind to it. In fact, the stories of the most successful open source software are stories of someone putting their mind to replicating the functionality of proprietary software – Linux from Unix, LibreOffice from MS Office, GIMP from Photoshop, &c., &c. You might even argue that many popular OER work very hard to closely replicate proprietary textbooks. But back to the point I believe he was actually trying to make…

This is clearly a principle he feels strongly about, given the monk-sleeping-on-cold-stone-floor level of commitment he puts into making sure he provides both options for Python for Everybody – the DIY-able GitHub version and the much more usable Coursera version. But I suppose at some point it’s with pausing to ask the question: if no one takes advantage of the DIY version, how much effort does it really merit? Especially when that effort could go into other work that would have a much larger impact? 

When I was a Shuttleworth Fellow I received one of most difficult pieces of advice I’ve ever been given. The advice was this – “don’t let your principles keep you from accomplishing your mission.” (This was in the context of a discussion Lumen’s principle of never charging students directly.) I didn’t fully understand it at the time. In the early days of Lumen, I thought the important work we were called to do was to make more things more open. Open all the things!!! Make them as open as possible!!! 

But open is a means, not an end

Lumen’s mission is to “enable unprecedented learning for all students.” There are myriad ways that leveraging the 5R power of open helps us do that. But there are also cases when investing the time and effort necessary to be more even more open would actually work against our real mission, which is enabling unprecedented learning for all students – not being as open as possible.

The thing that pisses me off in conversations like these is how those who are “pretty open” or “open core” or whatever participate in these discussions with the intent of defining their variation of hybrid proprietary + open in the name of money as “good enough” or “the best we can do” or “an ideal compromise”. They want validation / kudos / accolades for their particular choice of non-open bits.

I get that there are a lot of “not 100% open” business models and those should be “allowed” – but they should not be “celebrated” as the “pinnacle” of open just because someone makes a speech about how *their* hybrid model is the best we can do.

I don’t know that Dr. Chuck is talking to me directly here, but even if he’s not I think it’s a productive exercise to spend time with critiques from smart people you respect and see what you can learn from them. 

Speaking personally, I’m not interested in creating a business model that is celebrated as the pinnacle of open by anyone. I’m interested in developing a model that maximizes positive impacts on student success. As I’ve written before, when you’re talking about the impact educational materials can have on student outcomes, I think the key metrics are success, scale, and savings: how much can you improve outcomes, for how many students, and how much money can you save them while doing so.

Open – as in openly licensed content – has an important role to play in this effort for me personally. It enables continuous improvement, which drives gains in outcomes for students. It sidesteps royalties, which means greater savings for students.  But open is not the star of the show. It plays second fiddle to a number of things, like evidence-based learning design. (Increased access to ineffective learning materials doesn’t help anyone.)

If your goal is to be as open as possible, it will lead you to make one set of choices. You will begin by assuming Everything Should Be Open™ and work hard not to lose ground on that commitment. If your goal is anything else, you’ll think about open instrumentally – as one of many tools to accomplish your goal. Each place you might choose to be open, you will thoughtfully consider whether doing so would increase the likelihood of you accomplishing your goal. You will feel like open is a means and not the end

We should pause and ask the question – is more open always better?

Categories
creative commons forecasting meta open content open education sustainability

Reflections on Open Education and the Path Forward

There’s been a lot of discussion about open textbooks, efficacy research, and student cost savings in the wake of this year’s #OpenEd15. The general theme of the conversation has been a concern that a focus on open textbooks confuses the means of open education with the end of open education. I’m compiling a Storify of examples of this really engaging writing – you should definitely take the time to read through it. I’m not responding directly to many of the points made in those posts here, but will in later follow-up posts.

The overall criticism about ends / means confusion may or may not be true – it depends entirely on what you think the end or goal of open education should be. This is a conversation we almost never have in the field of open education. What is our long-term goal? What are we actually trying to accomplish? What kind of change are we trying to create in the world? The recently published OER strategy document, as informative as it is, reads more like a list of issues and opportunities than what Michael Feldstein describes as “rungs on a ladder of ambition.” Answering these questions leads to additional, more proximate concerns, like what specific steps do we need to take to get from here to there? In his #OpenEd15 keynote, Michael pushed our thinking with some additional questions, like “Who are we willing to let win?”

As I have reflected on the post-conference conversation, and these larger questions about goals and purpose, I’ve decided to share some of my current best answers to these questions. (Disclaimer: my answers are guaranteed to evolve over time.) Your answers will almost certainly be different than mine – and that’s a good thing. I’m not sharing my answers as a way of claiming that they reflect the One True Answer. I’m sharing them in the hope that they will prompt you to think more deeply about your own answers. I find that nothing helps me clarify my thinking quite like reading others’ thinking I disagree with. As we all take the opportunity to ask and answer these important questions for ourselves, and to do that thinking publicly, out loud, who knows what might happen?

Categories
open education textbooks

The Practical Cost of Textbooks

There’s a great conversation – a debate, almost – occurring right now about two indisputable facts:

  1. The College Board recommends that students budget around $1200 per year for textbooks and supplies.
  2. Surveys of students indicate that they spend around $600 per year on textbooks.

How can there be a debate about facts which no one disputes? The debate is around which fact is appropriate to cite under which circumstances. See excellent contributions to the discussion by Phil Hill, Mike Caulfield, Bracken Mosbacker, Phil Hill (again), and Mike Caulfield (again).

When someone cites the College Board number, they often (but not always) do so in the process of trying to lead their listener to the conclusion that textbooks are too expensive. Not just really expensive. Too expensive. In the textbook context, too expensive means “so expensive as to be harmful to students.” The College Board number typically surfaces in an argument that runs along the lines of – textbooks are too expensive, thus harming students, and for the sake of students we should do something about the cost of textbooks.

When someone cites the student survey number, they often (but not always) do it in the process of reacting to the College Board number, as if to say “See? Textbooks aren’t nearly as expensive as some would lead you to believe. The situation isn’t that bad.” And, by implication, students are doing ok.

My question is this: if the issue we want to discuss is the impact of textbook costs on students, why don’t we just go straight to the data that deal directly with the impact of textbook costs on students? When we dip our toe in the $1200/$600 debate we’re likely to raise questions among listeners that will only distract them from the issue we’re actually trying to discuss.

Rather than using cost data as a proxy for impact on students, let’s talk about what the data say the actual impact of textbook costs is on students.

One of the best sources of data available on this subject are the Florida Virtual Campus surveys. The most recent, including over 18,000 students, asks students directly about the impact of textbook costs on their academic career:

table6

What impact does the cost of textbooks have on students? Textbook costs cause students to occasionally or frequently take fewer courses (35% of students), to drop or withdraw from courses (24%), and to earn either poor or failing grades (26%). Regardless of whether you have historically preferred the College Board number or the student survey number, a third fact that is beyond dispute is that surveys of students indicate that the cost of textbooks negatively impacts their learning (grades) and negatively impacts their time to graduation (drops, withdraws, and credits).

And yes, we need to do something about it.

Thankfully, faculty are already well aware of the problem. According to a recent Inside Higher Ed / Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 faculty agree that textbooks and other commercial course materials are too expensive:

According to the poll, faculty also overwhelmingly agree that OER are a viable solution to the problem of textbook costs: more than 9 in 10 faculty believe that they should be assigning more OER. Now we just need to help and support them as they make that change.

(Another very real impact of textbook costs on students is their contribution to student loan debt. That’s an important conversation, but one that I’ll save for later.)