Think about the last time one of the textbooks you currently use released a new edition. How many hours did you have to invest first to familiarize yourself with the new book, then adjusting your course outline to account for re-ordered chapters? What about the new content, or the material available in the previous edition that was now left out? How did you accommodate the former and compensate for the latter?
If you are still reading, ask yourself one last question: Why do you put up with this?
Forget for a moment that the rising cost of textbooks outpaces inflation four-fold (Coker & Glynn, 2017). Put a pin in the startling notion that as many as 7 in 10 students may not buy the book for your class (Redden, 2011). For now, let’s just focus on you and your experience as an educator. Motivating students to read is challenging enough. Moreover, expecting students to find reading chapter six in the second week of the semester, and chapter two in the sixth intuitive is optimistic at best.
Now, let’s usher in the viewpoints in opposition of open resources:
- 1. There are no open materials for my discipline, course, etc.
- 2. Open materials are low-quality, not properly vetted, etc.
- 3. Finding and assembling the materials is too time-consuming
Let’s beat up on each of the above a little bit.
In the case of the first argument, you might be surprised just how much is out there if you know where to look. Working with an expert, such as one of CMU’s librarians, can also be transformative. Most often when the lack of available content is raised, the situation is one in which an investigation has not occurred recently enough to find the newest resources. It’s possible that something you need wasn’t available last year, last month, or three minutes ago when you began skimming this article; now it could be ready and waiting to be found. Domo.com (2017) reports that more than 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created each day, a mind-boggling statistic which makes a very logical pivot to the second opposing viewpoint regarding quality.
Though a knee-jerk response to claims about low OER quality with snarky comments about low textbook quality is tempting, there’s no value in such an approach. Rather, the best response to this second concern is tied to the answer to the first, with two additions: First, work with experts – in this case a librarian and an instructional designer can be a powerful combination. Next, though, you should plan time to vet what they find and assemble on your own, to determine its value and identify what else may still need to be found, or created.
Finally, the third common concern is often the time-consuming nature of replacing a book with a collection of open resources, an open textbook, or a combination of these and other items of your own creation. It does take time, and, in some cases a lot of time. However, some of the investment of time is what’s known outside of higher education as a one time job. Much of the effort is executed just once, for a single desired return. After all, no one is going to change the edition of the open textbook you assemble and, in doing so, briefly turn your life upside down. Taking part in an Open Textbook Lab series with the CETL can also help to mitigate some of the time investment, by structuring the process, pairing you with the right repositories, and integrating library and technical support.
For assistance in integrating OERs into your course(s) or to answer any further questions you have, visit our website or contact cetl@cmich.edu.
References
Coker, C., & Glynn, J. (2017). Making college affordable. Retrieved from https://studentpirgs.org/sites/student/files/reports/National%20- %20COVERING%20THE%20COST.pdf
Domo.com (2017). Data never sleeps 5.0. Retrieved from https://web-assets.domo.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/17_domo_data-never-sleeps-5-01.png
Redden, M. (2011). 7 in 10 students have skipped buying a textbook because of its cost, survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, 23.