Instructor & Student Experiences with Open Textbooks, from the California Open Online Library for Education

INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT

EXPERIENCES WITH OPEN TEXTBOOKS,

FROM THE CALIFORNIA OPEN ONLINE

LIBRARY FOR EDUCATION (COOL4ED)

Christina Hendricks – University of British Columbia-Vancouver

Ozgur Ozdemir – Indiana University

Open Education Conference, Nov. 2016

1

California Community CollegesCalifornia State University

University of California

3

http://coolfored.org/

Research Questions• Faculty motivations for adopting OT or other OER• Cost savings for students• Student perceptions/attitudes (as reported by

faculty)• Impact on student learning and retention• Other benefits and drawbacks

3

Methods

Data collection

51 Faculty ePortfolios• About the (1) book, (2) course,

(3) open textbook adoption, and (4) faculty bio

• 30 Postsecondary Institutions• 7 Disciplinary Areas

Data analysis Content Analysis• Open Coding

4

Findings: RQ1

5

Note: N=51

Cost Saving Content Repurposing Accessibility

80%

44%

24%

20%

Motivating Factors

Findings: RQ2• Typical costs for new textbooks reported by faculty: $50 to over $275 per book, average $140

• 32 faculty members reported how many students teach/year

• Estimated total cost savings: $706,740 per year, for 5733 students ($123/student)

6

#textbookbrokebc image, by UBC undergraduate student society

Findings: RQ3

Note: N=40Cost Saving Content Accessibility

97%

43%

40%

0%

15%

0%

Students Attitude

Positive Attitude Negative Attitude

7

Findings: RQ4

Note: N=51

Yes, Improved Stayed the Same Declined Not Assessed/Unsure

39%

16%

0%

45%

16%

12%

0%

72%

Learning & Retention

Student Learning Improved? Student Retention Improved?

8

Findings: RQ5

Note: N=519

Collaborated more with other faculty?

Used wider range of materials?

Drawbacks of using OER?

61%

86%

14%

39%

14%

86%

OTHER BENEFITS OR FRAWBACKS

Yes No

Some conclusions• Cost savings: most prominent concern for faculty (80%)

& students (93% of those that reported student views)

• Content: only 4% of portfolios showed negative views by faculty, 12% by students

• Adaptability: noted as important on 40% of portfolios

10