may09b.indd scholarly communication C. Jeff rey Belliston Open Educational Resources Creating the instruction commons Open Educational Resources (OER) were the topic of the ACRL­SPARC Forum at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in January. David Wiley (associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University and chief openness officer of Flat World Knowl­ edge1) opened the panel portion of the forum. Wiley was followed by Richard Baraniuk (founder of Connexions2 and professor of elec­ trical and computer engineering at Rice Univer­ sity). Nicole Allen (The Student PIRGs [Public Interest Research Groups] “Make Textbooks Affordable” project3), then gave the student per­ spective. Mark Nelson (digital content strategist for the National Association of College Stores [NACS]4) concluded the panel presentations before questions were taken from the audience. A significant barrier to students All four panelists spoke to the cost of text­ books—the basic classroom educational re­ source. According to research by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, textbook costs are a “significant barrier” that keep some enrolled students from being able to continue their studies and some potential students from enrolling in the fi rst place.5 The average college student spends around $900 per year on textbooks.6 From 1994 to 2003, the rate of textbook price inflation averaged more than four times the rate of general price infl ation.7 Textbook publishers employ a variety of strategies that compound the problem of high cost by ensuring that the market for used texts is as small as possible. These strategies include regularly releasing new editions; bundling fre­ quently unneeded consumables and other ancil­ lary items with the text; customizing textbooks to particular campuses or even sections of courses; and charging higher prices in the United States than abroad.8 Most current commercial digital textbooks include expirations, which means that students have absolutely no use for the material after the expiration date.9 This effectively means that students who “purchase” such a text actu­ ally only “rent” it. Publishers have gotten away with high prices and restrictive practices like those de­ scribed above because they enjoy an artifi cial market. Most manufacturers market their prod­ ucts to the end user who makes the decision to buy or not. Textbook publishers do not market to, nor are they accountable to, the student consumer. Publishers market to and are accountable to the professor who decides which text the students must use. Professors routinely receive complimentary copies (and perhaps other incentives to select a particular textbook). This only reinforces the artifi ciality of the market. Professors simply do not have to pay the price their students pay. OERs are one means of addressing the high costs for students of this artificial market. Pres­ ton McAfee received SPARC’s newest Innovator recognition because he was “the first to publish a complete textbook, Introduction to Economic Analysis, and make it openly available online. McAfee’s book . . . currently used on campuses from Harvard to New York University . . . is wel­ come relief for strapped college students who are paying $100 and more for textbooks.”10 For Contact Joyce L. Ogburn—series editor, cochair of the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee, and university librarian at the University of Utah— with article ideas, e-mail: joyce.ogburn@utah.edu C. Jeffrey Belliston is scholarly communications librarian and chair of the Office of Digital Content Management at Brigham Young University, e-mail: jeff rey_belliston@ byu.edu © 2009 C. Jeff rey Belliston 284C&RL News May 2009 mailto:joyce.ogburn@utah.edu $15.20 students can purchase McAfee’s book through the print­on­demand site lulu.com. Three reasons students prefer print Why would students print out a text that they can read online for free? Mark Nelson shared three reasons, according to NACS survey data. The first reason many students select a particular format is because their professors use that for­ mat. Most professors use a printed text. Second, the current student cohort was raised on print texts. Student PIRGs data show that 60 percent of students with access to a digital text would also like a printed copy, if it was affordable. These preferences might change over time if digital textbooks become more widely used in K–12 education.11 Technological factors are the third reason underlying the continued desire for printed textbooks. Some digital textbooks are available only when a student has network access to the publisher’s site.12 While the possibility of such access is increasing on most campuses, it is still not universal. Digital textbooks have yet to be formatted for the cell phone, the portable de­ vice students are most fond of. Even dedicated e­book readers such as the Amazon Kindle and Sony’s e­Reader are not completely hospitable to digital textbooks. With the present feature sets of these readers, students cannot highlight or annotate a digital textbook like they can a printed textbook. Even the way to search a digital text—arguably its greatest advantage over a printed text—is not obvious to students. When speaking about OERs, “open” means more than just being able to read a textbook online for free. Just as it does with the broader open access movement, “open” also implies the availability to create derivative works. OERs provide an incredible opportunity not previously offered to professors. Because of the reuse and customization capabilities of OERs, professors can pick and choose from what is available, make needed modifications, and add content of their own to come up with something that more closely meets the need of a specifi c course— or even a specific section of a course. And a printed copy of the result can be produced at a reasonable price for students. Therefore, such OER customization differs materially from the commercial efforts to restrict the used textbook market previously mentioned. OER reuse and customization suggests the possibility that use of a commercial textbook supplemented by course packs may become a thing of the past. OER opportunities for librarians The panelists suggested specific ways in which libraries and librarians can play a benefi cial role where OERs are concerned. Taken together, these suggestions mean that we have the power to influence the creation, the ongoing avail­ ability, the perception of credibility, and the adoption and use of OERs. Some of what librar­ ians can do will feel very comfortable. Other possibilities are likely to stretch us. Librarians, whose ranks are filled with spe­ cialists and experts in a variety of fields, can be contributors to the open educational commons by creating OERs themselves. A librarian need not write an entire textbook to contribute in this way. Librarians routinely teach informa­ tion literacy sessions and may have developed materials for such teaching. As OERs, these materials have the potential to be invaluable to professors and students far beyond a creator’s own institution. They may well provide the side benefit of helping us make progress on the road to true course­integrated instruction. We should be aware that professorial faculty at our institutions may author OERs, as well. They might do so on their own or with the assistance of a specialized center (e.g., BYU’s Center for Teaching and Learning) charged with assisting faculty with their teaching responsibili­ ties, including helping them create appropriate instructional materials. Librarians can take the lead in educating the instructional designers who work in these centers about the existence and creation of OERs. As with other faculty publications, OERs cre­ ated by individual faculty, or with the assistance of a teaching and learning center, will undoubt­ edly be of ongoing interest to our institutions. Accordingly, librarians should work to archive faculty­authored OERs in our institutional re­ positories and, if appropriate, in our physical libraries when print equivalents exist. May 2009 285 C&RL News http:education.11 http:lulu.com Both Wiley and Allen suggested that librar­ ian expertise directed to indexing OERs—both those created by our own faculty and by oth­ ers—is a valuable activity. C&RL News and other library publications routinely carry lists of excellent Web­accessible resources. OERs could be highlighted in such publications. Just as some librarians do with new book and database notifications, we can also proactively make our faculty aware of new OERs of potential interest. Academic library Web sites typically have a vari­ ety of subject resource pages created by subject librarians. OERs can be included on such pages and/or highlighted on pages devoted strictly to this type of resource. As a traditional collection development func­ tion, indexing OERs in the manner described speaks to issues of quality. The same red her­ rings that have been raised about open access in general (i.e., the lack of peer review and editorial control) have also been raised with respect to OERs. By its very nature, collection development entails evaluation resulting in the selection of quality materials relevant to the needs of a library’s patrons. Evaluation for selection of quality OERs will show that not ev­ erything purporting to be a quality OER actually is a quality OER. However, just because an OER is openly available on the Web does not mean that it is of poor quality or that it has not been subjected to any quality checks. Baraniuk sug­ gested that librarians should be as comfortable applying their collection development skills to evaluating OERs as they are with other Web­ accessible resources. Librarians who teach can make quality OERs a part of their instruction. Many librarians teach as part of information literacy instruction pro­ grams; some teach full courses; others do both. Some librarians teach on their own; others are part of a teaching team—either with other librar­ ians or with professorial faculty. Regardless of circumstance, teaching librarians can adopt, or suggest the adoption of, an OER textbook for their courses. If no suitable text exists (because of either subject treatment or excessive price), they can, as already suggested, write or mix their own textbook. Or if the decision is made to use a commercially published textbook, teach­ ing librarians can suggest the use of relevant OER modules or lessons where these would be appropriate. Research articles are frequently selected for inclusion in course packs. Open access articles—whether published in an open access journal or available in an open access institu­ tional or disciplinary repository—become OERs when used as teaching and learning materials. OER adoption and use can be infl uenced by policy. The open educational commons could benefit greatly if every campus teaching and learning center operated under a policy that all of its products would be released under an appropriate Creative Commons license.13 Under such a policy, these products would themselves become OERs. Wiley suggested that rather than appearing ex nihilo, such policies will only be adopted if librarians and others become actively involved in campus discussions about intel­ lectual property. Even if such policies covering teaching center products are adopted, some faculty will create useful OERs of high quality on their own. These OERs enjoy the same copyright protection as the books or scholarly articles that faculty members author. In order to make their personally created OERs accessible to anyone, faculty members must make this accessibility explicit. Wiley suggested that individual fac­ ulty use the Creative Commons “Attribution” license,14 though he recognized there are times when organizations may prefer the Creative Commons “Attribution Non­commercial Share Alike” license15 used on all materials at Flat World Knowledge. Baraniuk mentioned two roadblocks creating problems in the OER arena. The first is the lack of an agreed upon intellectual property stan­ dard. Not all OER creators or sites use the same license. As mentioned, Flat World Knowledge materials use the “Attribution Non­commercial Share Alike” license. OERs at MIT’s Open­ Courseware site16 use the same license. Those at Connexions use the “Attribution” Creative Commons license.17 If all OER creators use a similar license, then mashups (i.e., new OERs created from more than one existing OER) will not run into problems since all of the constitu­ 286C&RL News May 2009 http:license.17 http:license.13 ent OERs permit the same uses. The lack of technical standards is the second roadblock. It is difficult to remix existing OERs when one is a PowerPoint file and another is a PDF of a PowerPoint. OERs join the other opens—Open Access, Open Source, Open Data, Open Science—in creating a more robust and useful open com­ mons. They hold the promise of making educa­ tion at all levels, but especially higher education, more affordable. OERs are more in tune with the movement to greater accountability (i.e., providing a better return on investment), which is definitely a trend in higher ed. Librarians can help by contributing their own OERs to the commons; screening for, indexing, and archiving quality OERs; using OERs in their own teaching; and participating in discussions leading toward responsible intellectual property policies and useful standards. Notes 1 . F l a t Wo r l d K n o w l e d g e , w w w . fl atworldknowledge.com. 2. Connexions, cnx.org. 3. “Make Textbooks Affordable” project, www.maketextbooksaffordable.org, 4. National Association of College Stores, www.nacs.org. 5. Advisory Committee on Student Finan­ cial Assistance, Turn the Page: Making College Textbooks More Affordable (Washington, D.C.: ACSFA, 2007), 9, www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm /list/acsfa/turnthepage.pdf. 6. State Public Interest Research Groups, Ripoff 101: How The Publishing Industry’s Prac­ tices Needlessly Drive Up Textbook Costs, 2nd ed., (Washington, D.C.: State PIRGs, 2005), 4, www. maketextbooksaffordable.org/ripoff_2005.pdf. 7. Ibid., 7. 8. Ibid., 7–9. 9. Nicole Allen, Course Correction: How Digital Textbooks Are Off Track, And How to Set Them Straight (Chicago, IL: The Student PIRGs, 2008), 5, www.maketextbooksaffordable.org /course_correction.pdf. (continues on page 303) May 2009 287 C&RL News http:www.maketextbooksaffordable.org www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm http:www.nacs.org http:www.maketextbooksaffordable.org http:atworldknowledge.com to the collection, with sufficient terminals in the CMC. II. Indexes for uncataloged items—The CMC shall have indexes, preferably elec­ tronic, to access noncataloged items (e.g., curriculum guides on microfi che, etc.). Assessment The CMC should have a plan in place for evalu­ ating the achievement of its mission and goals. I. Plan—The plan should focus on how well the CMC is meeting its goals and objec­ tives relative to its collection, administration, facilities, and service. II. Frequency—The evaluation should take place on a periodic basis. III. Methodology—The method used could be accomplished through focus groups, surveys, questionnaires, or other evaluation strategies and should include participation by all user groups. (See Appendix I) IV. Resources—A variety of published ma­ terials related to the management of CMCs are available and should be consulted regularly. (See Appendix II) V. Results—The results of the evaluation should be recorded and used in reviewing the viability of the current goals and objectives with changes being made where appropriate. Appendix I Adequate and appropriate documentation is vitally important to evaluation of the CMC. Following are examples of types of documen­ tation that may be gathered to show compli­ ance with the guidelines. I. Budget reports II. Calendars III. Collection development policy IV. Floor plans V. Inventories VI. Policies and procedures VII. Publication examples (handouts/ bibliographies/pathfi nders) VIII. Publicity materials IX. Schedules X. Statistics a. Reference statistics b. User statistics c. Usage statistics XI. Web sites Appendix II Bibliography of resources that are recom­ mended for consultation by CMC directors. Carr, J. (Ed.). (2001). A guide to the manage­ ment of curriculum materials centers for the 21st century: The promise and the challenge. Chicago: IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association. Curriculum Materials Committee of the Edu­ cation and Behavioral Sciences Section. (2007). A guide to writing CMC collection development policies. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library As­ sociation. Retrieved from www.ala.org/ala/ mgrps/divs/acrl/acrlpubs/downloadables /guidetowritingcmc.pdf. Lare, G. (2004). Acquiring and organizing curriculum materials: A guide and directory of resources. (2nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Olive, F. (Ed.) (2001). Directory of cur­ riculum materials centers. Association of Col­ lege and Research Libraries, American Library Association. Retrieved fromacrl.telusys.com /cmc/index (New edition forthcoming.) (“OERs” continues from page 287) 10. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Re­ sources Coalition, Preston McAfee named new­ est SPARC innovator, dianahacker.com/resdoc /p04_c10_s2.html#21. 11. Allen, 9–10. 12. Ibid., 5 and 10. 13. Creative Commons, creativecommons. org. 14. Creative Commons “Attribution” license, creativecommons.org/licenses/by /3.0/. 15. Creative Commons “Attribution Non­com­ mercial Share Alike” license creativecommons. org/licenses/by­nc­sa/3.0/. 16. MIT’s OpenCourseware site, ocw.mit. edu/OcwWeb/web/terms/terms/index.htm#cc. 17. Connexions use the “Attribution,” Cre­ ative Commons, licensecreativecommons.org /licenses/by/2.0. May 2009 303 C&RL News http:licensecreativecommons.org http:fromacrl.telusys.com www.ala.org/ala