One of these days, Open Education Conference, I’ll attend you in person. In the meantime: thank you for providing a well-coordinated (and affordable) option for virtual attendance. This is my second year attending the Open Education Conference from afar and both occasions were well worth my time. I attended 20+ of the virtually available sessions, which isn’t close to half, but still gave me plenty to ponder. Below, I’ve organized a few thematic takeaways I’ll be thinking more about and what they mean for the future of my library and my institution. If you attended OpenEd2025 and came away with something different, please share in the comments!
The tightening walls of EdTech
There is a growing sense among open education advocates of the ways proprietary educational technology (EdTech) restricts and undermines the goals of the open education movement. In several sessions[1], presenters identified the pressing issue of platformitization: EdTech providers are inking long-term deals with administrators at the institutional, system, and even state levels that reduce faculty freedom in using different educational tools, such as homework software and learning management systems. Ostensibly, these agreements are being negotiated without much input from their institutions’ foremost experts in material and tool licensing. Librarians have traditionally leveraged our expertise in collections and licensing to lead negotiations that center access, equity, and sustainability, but we’re lacking a seat at these EdTech tables. That needs to change quickly as commercial providers—who tend to profit off student data—continue to more deeply embed their products into the basic functions of higher education.
- The issue of platformitization overlaps substantially with automatic billing textbook schemes. If you’ve been following that saga, you might recall that automatic textbook billing programs’ ethical dubiousness was enough to draw the Biden administration’s attention, who had planned to outlaw the practice. Instead, such so-called “inclusive access” programs persist, in which students (sometimes all students, sometimes students enrolled in certain courses) are automatically opted-in to pay either a flat course material fee or the first-sale cost of their course materials.[2] Many textbooks are now accompanied by proprietary homework software that are understandably appealing to instructors of large-enrollment courses. Together, these factors reduce the rationale for instructors to use open educational resources (OER), especially at schools that charge students a flat fee regardless of whether their course materials are free. In turn, these factors continue to undermine efforts for student affordability. In a presentation on measuring and communicating the value of OER, Virginia Clinton-Lisell[3] cited results of her recent student survey, in which “29.4% [of students] reported their grade was hurt because they could not afford an [homework system] access code,” and in which first generation students reported higher rates of having to pay for homework access, and experienced more subsequent negative effects. To make matters worse, access to homework systems is generally restricted to a single semester, and one-time access codes don’t allow students to recoup any cost through resale like they might with physical textbooks.
- One bright spot in response to these issues is the work of librarians in the Big Ten Academic Alliance, who collaborated to pilot library support for open homework systems.[4] In pilot courses, 49% of students found the open systems more relevant/helpful than proprietary systems in other courses, and the other 50% of students felt open homework systems were about the same as proprietary systems. All pilot faculty said they planned to continue using their piloted systems and would recommend those systems to their colleagues. This seems like a promising way for librarians, with help from supportive instructional designers and IT departments, to promote open alternatives in the age of Big EdTech.
- Robert Farrow shared a cogent philosophical argument on openness as critical perspective that couples nicely with this practical example from the Big Ten. Openness creates conditions for innovation that are transparent, participatory, and grounded in public values via practices like open-source development frameworks and open licensing.[5] We need to identify and support the new forms of EdTech that demonstrate these traits, and in turn, we must question who benefits from certain technologies, whose voices are marginalized, and what pedagogical assumptions are embedded in design of each EdTech option. Many of us in higher ed have the privilege and cultural capital to speak out about issues like EdTech corporate capture at our institutions. In particular, Farrow argued that part of our goal should be to shift the narrative away from market hype and techno-solutionism toward values of transparency, pluralism, ethics, and equity. And speaking of techno-solutionism…
AI is a bummer and we have to contend with it
Generative AI was predictably a well-trodden topic at OpenEd2025. I fall toward the skeptical/morally opposed end of the spectrum when it comes to AI but am always interested to hear what smart people think about it and how to deal with it. A few quotes continue to ring in my mind weeks after the conference.
“AI is a very seductive digital eugenics infrastructure.”
Jutta Treviranus, Director of the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD University, referencing how AI leads us toward discursively normative ways of thinking via its core function: searching for probable (read: dominant) patterns in human data.[6]
“[Quoting Simon Wardley] ‘LLMs are a non-kinetic form of warfare. By controlling the language, medium and tools then they influence how we reason about any space.’ I believe this, and I also believe this second thing, which is: If your institution is not graduating students who are fluent and critical users of AI, your institution is criminally negligent.”
Hugh McGuire, Founder of Pressbooks, describing the tension we face as AI malcontents in a world hurtling toward an AI future.[7]
“When you see unexpected use of AI, that should often be understood as a signal for unmet need rather than as a moral failing by an individual.”
Will Cross, Director of the Open Knowledge Center and Head of Information Policy at NC State University Libraries, explaining why AI policies should be grounded in clear pedagogical goals as one principle of the DO3RS Policy Priorities for Generative AI and Open Education.
Reasons for hope
For me, the most valuable takeaway from this conference is the solidarity and inspiration that radiates when fellow advocates get together and share ideas, even in an increasingly difficult environment for open education’s goals. Challenges present opportunities for creativity and re-commitment to our values. I found much-appreciated reasons for hope in a number of sessions.
- Folks from the American Association of Colleges & Universities presented data from their multi-institutional study into the impact of open education on student success.[8] Although the evidence itself is compelling, the most exciting part of this study is that preliminary data analysis suggests there may be rationale to add OER adoption to AAC&U’s list of High-Impact Practices (HIPs). I’m aware of HIPs mostly because they’ve received attention and investment at my university—maybe they’re of interest to administration at your college or university too. In either case, the institutionalization of OER adoption by influential organizations like AAC&U would put open education “in another conversation,” as Eddie Watson put it, for many institutions that value HIPs but have yet to invest heavily in open ed.
- In “A Positive Agenda for Open Education as a Public Good,” presenters pitched four principles we could bring to our work in libraries (and academia at large) moving forward, so as to orient toward a vision of higher education as a public good rather than a site of corporate control: a) Whenever we build or pay for something at libraries, it needs to be open; b) Push for the absolute most you can get in electronic licensing agreements and then share those agreements publicly, thereby building up community norms and standards; c) Understand and rely on fair use to take full advantage of our legal rights as libraries; and d) Record and share the stories of when the corporate-influenced system fails us.[9]
- “Connect the opens” was a chorus heard in multiple sessions, and was highlighted by the work of SPARC Europe in their capacity as a resource and network hub for institutions across the continent who want to interweave different open efforts.[10] I like their focus on an explicit connection between open science and open education, which has resonated with lab instructors at my own institution.
- Finally, in Right to Learn Afghanistan’s presentation on their online education program, I was reminded of a core reason why we work to make knowledge more open and accessible and remixable for whoever needs it, and the impact OER have already made in the world. Relying on their library of over 8,000 OER—the first initiative of its kind available in Afghanistan—the Darakht-e Danesh Academi provides an online secondary school to over 600 currently enrolled students as they pursue internationally recognized high school diplomas in a country where such education is difficult to access. And in turn, these OERs adapted or created for the Afghan context can be resources for our institutions as well. When we talk about student success and impact metrics related to open education, we can’t forget how OER might impact people beyond our institutions, even though we might never see it.
Lastly, here are a few resources and examples I was excited to learn about, some of which were mentioned above:
- Oregon State University’s excellent data dashboards for open education metrics and OER usage metrics, built with LookerStudio.
- Approaches to Open Pedagogy: A Guide for Practitioners – a practical collection of several strong and successful examples of open pedagogy.
- DO3RS Policy Priorities for Generative AI and Open Education – a report informed by open educators and open practices that “presents four guiding principles to help institutions evaluate and shape their AI strategies.”
- The Global OER Graduate Network’s collection of OER, much of which is focused on research methods and the navigation and practice of graduate education.
Stay as open as possible, as closed as necessary, everyone!
[1] Cross, W., Allen, N., McCullough, H., & Cook, E. (2025). Rewiring EdTech Licensing: Bringing Open Values to the Platforms that Shape our Learning; Buckley, A., Williamson, D., Allen, N., Elder, A., Shoemate, J., Abdullah, A., Diaz, L, & Goller, C. (2025). Navigating Open Education’s Path Forward in the U.S. Political Landscape.
[2] Students generally have the opportunity to opt-out of these programs, but this process tends to be unintuitive and poorly communicated to students, despite the opposition’s best efforts.
[3] Bliss, T. J., Elder, A., Wagstaff, S., Clinton-Lisell, V., & Buck, S. (2025). What Difference Does It Make? Measuring & Communicating the Impact of OER Initiatives.
[4] McGeary, B., Gjeltema, M., Nackerud, S., Wetherington, C., & Yu, S.(2025) Piloting a Library-Led Support Model for Open Homework Systems: Outcomes, Lessons, & Recommendations.
[5] Farrow, R. (2025). Openness as critical perspective.
[6] Treviranus, J., Bali, M., Santos, S., & Scott, A. M. (2025). AI on Our Terms: Designing Open, Inclusive, and Responsible AI.
[7] Cross, W., Jacob, M., Gallant, J., McGuire, H., & Hoye, A. (2025). Connecting the Dots on AI: Developing a Policy Response Grounded in the Experience of Open Educators.
[8] Micelli, H., Watson, C. E., Chittum, J., Schneider, H., & Perkins, B. (2025). Beyond Affordability: Early Insights from a Multi-Institutional Study on OER and Student Success.
[9] Cross, W., Jacob, M., & Hansen, D. (2025). A Positive Agenda for Open Education as a Public Good.
[10] Proudman, V., Corti, P., & Stacey, P. (2025). Connecting the Opens.