Tag: open education

Q&A: Open Educational Resources as a New High-Impact Practice

This project has major implications for the future of open education in the U.S.

If you follow open education news, you probably heard over the summer that AAC&U recognized Open Educational Resources (OER) as a High-Impact Practice (HIP). OER’s addition to the roster of 12 teaching and learning practices means AAC&U has deemed there to be “…significant educational benefits for students who participate in them—including and especially those from demographic groups historically underserved by higher education.” To achieve the requisite degree of evidence, AAC&U commissioned what it describes as “the largest examination of OER to date.” Over two years, their research team examined around 700,000 student records along with qualitative responses from over 200 instructors who had implemented OER in their courses, drawn from 15 institutions across six Carnegie classifications.

This project has major implications for the future of open education in the U.S., not only as the path to OER’s recognition as a HIP, but also via rich, multifaceted data that requires so much labor to collect and analyze at scale. The insights from this study are valuable both as rationale for institutional support of OER and as practical considerations for open education advocates and instructors. Whether you consider open education a passion, a moral obligation, or a job responsibility, the full report is worth a deep dive. (And a quick unsolicited plug for Open Education Conference, where the AAC&U team shared early results from this study last year). My institution has an office dedicated to promoting HIPs on campus, as I imagine is true at many other colleges and universities. The opportunity to embed support for open education beyond traditional advocacy units (e.g. libraries, teaching centers) may be truly game-changing at institutions where that hasn’t yet happened.

Heather Miceli, Assistant Director of the Institute on Open Educational Resources and a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at AAC&U, kindly answered a few questions about their study and High-Impact Practices for ACRLog.

I’m sure there are many possible practices that could be studied as potential high-impact practices. Why OER? In other words, what led to the initiation of this study, including but also beyond the guiding research questions?

Open Education, as we know it currently, is celebrating a milestone anniversary this year. Twenty-five years, a quarter of a century. And yet, the practice is still fairly siloed, sometimes completely unknown to faculty and instructors whose students would benefit from even just the affordability argument. However, we knew from multiple smaller scale studies that the potential to impact student success was there. But we also knew that there were small sample sizes, confounding variables, and conflicting results. So, we decided to take a shot at trying to gather as much data as possible, from as many different types of institutions as possible, to push forward the conversation on how OER impact student success. At the same time, one of the foundation pieces of high-impact practices (HIPs) is that they are most impactful “when done well.” We wanted to capture the instructor experience and connect it as much as we could with what we were seeing in the quantitative data.

The report describes some differences in instructors’ experiences between those who adopted an OER without revision vs. those who revised, remixed, or created OERs. How would you summarize/synthesize some those differences and what they might mean for librarians who support instructors making course material decisions?

We found considerable evidence across multiple contexts that when instructors choose to revise, remix, or create their own OER (high-level implementation), the withdrawal rates in the course are significantly lower than those who chose to simply adopt (low-level implementation). We attribute this to the fact that higher-level implementation of OER allows instructors to customize the texts specifically for their students, courses, and context – which has been shown in the literature to have a positive impact on student belonging and success.

We also found some interesting correlation in the instructor survey around high- vs. low-level implementation. 52% of instructors that simply adopted their OER as is were externally motivated, meaning that they were required to adopt the text by the institution or the department, as opposed to only 12% that revised/remixed/created their OER. Of those that adopted because they were externally motivated, 34% perceived their first implementation went poorly. We also found that 31% of those who adopted and had no support also perceived their first implementation as poor. These results did not surprise us—we know that support and internal motivation are going to be key variables in the quality of implementation. However, when we looked at instructors who adopted and who perceived their first OER implementation to be poor, we found that they overwhelmingly did not engage in any other teaching practice changes as a result of using OER.

Could you highlight a few other takeaways from the study that might be especially relevant to librarians and other open education advocates?

One of the most significant findings was that at doctoral institutions, withdrawal rates decreased at much higher rates than any of the other institutions when OER was implemented. It was especially impactful for students with a high intersectionality of historically minoritized characteristics. Doctoral institutions are likely the most heterogenous institutions in our study, and this result suggests that OER, on its own, could be a compelling retention strategy for students in their first year courses (the majority of courses in our sample from doctoral institutions were lower-level courses).

In terms of grades, we found that A grades increased across the board, with a small increase also in F grades—we attribute the increase in F grades to students finishing a course when without OER, they might have withdrawn from the course, putting their enrollment in jeopardy.

A frankly jaw-dropping finding at community colleges was that when students who had been enrolled for 4 or more years took 6 or more OER courses, their time-to-completion dropped by over a calendar year. This finding shows that institutionalized OER could be a monumental strategy in shortening time-to-completion for nontraditional students.

With the understanding that their operationalization might look different campus-to-campus, why does it matter for something to be recognized as a high-impact practice by AAC&U? What opportunities can that recognition present?

Since their inception almost twenty years ago, high impact practices (HIPs) have shaped the experiences of millions of students in the US and abroad. We know that when students participate in HIPs, especially those from historically minoritized groups in higher education, they report positive cumulative, additive effects on student success. However, when you look at the list of HIPs, a lot of the experiences require time and resources that aren’t available to all students. For example, not all internships are paid, and there are many students who can’t afford to give their free labor to companies to advance their education; study abroad programs are inaccessible to students that have familial or parenting responsibilities. So, we are starting to look to the future of HIPs knowing that a practice that is included on this list is valued highly by administrators and curriculum developers, so much so that some institutions require participation in HIPs for graduation. We hope that in adding OER to the list, with substantial evidence to support their use in many contexts, we can begin to see a shift towards further institutionalization of OER on campuses, including the necessary instructor support to ensure optimal implementation.

Thank you to Heather for her responses, and thank you to Heather and her research team for this study. We may not understand the full scope of this work’s impact on the field for a while, but I expect it will be significant.

A few takeaways from Open Education 2025

In an age of corporate techno-solutionism, open education can help academia fulfill its responsibilities to the public good. But we have to institutionalize and preserve open principles to do so.

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

Han Solo has a bad feeling about standing in a trash compactor. Gif by JuniorCor84, retrieved from tenor.com.

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

Luke Skywalker expresses disbelief and displeasure in a single word. Gif by Sephirock38, retrieved from tenor.com.

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

Han Solo believing in himself despite the difficulties of the situation. Gif by JuniorCor84, retrieved from tenor.com.

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:

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.

Herd Immunity

I’ll add to the post-ACRL 2019 conference reflection writing with a nod to the presentation I can’t stop thinking about and sharing with colleagues:

When Research Gets Trolled: Digital Safety for Open Researchers
by Reed Garber-Pearson, Verletta Kern, Madeline Mundt, Elliot Stevens, and Madison Sullivan

This group of librarians from the University of Washington advocate for educating scholars on digital safety and privacy, particularly those who make their work publicly accessible, do research with or about people from marginalized groups, and/or identify as a member of a marginalized group. They acknowledge the risk that public intellectuals, or scholars who seek to make their work open, take on in this world of targeted online harassment, doxxing, and offline threats. People of color, and women of color in particular, are most likely to be impacted by these acts of sabotage and harassment; we need only look at Roxane Gay‘s Twitter feed at any given moment to see this kind of gross activity.

It is, quite frankly, terrifying.

The presenters make the case that this kind of trolling can have a serious impact on academic and intellectual freedom: If a researcher is brutally bullied online and threatened offline, will they be less likely to continue their line of research and make their work publicly available? For all that we in libraries push for open access to research, we need to be equally concerned about the safety and well-being of the researchers we are asking to share their work. In advocating for their safety and sharing information about protecting themselves online, librarians can help boost what the panelists’ referred to as “herd immunity.” Researchers who protect themselves online also protect their colleagues, friends, and families, as online harassers often jump between networks to target others.

As a woman of color who does most of her thinking and writing openly online, I will admit that this presentation hit me hard. I have friends and acquaintances who have been horribly bullied on social media and in comments (yes, I always read the comments and know it is the wrong thing to do). I always thought this was to be endured. Trolls gonna troll. I am so appreciative of this collective of librarians who are sharing ways to prevent, or at least mitigate this harm and harassment. I thought the presenters struck the right tone–not alarmist, but informative and considerate. They had the best interests of researchers–and yes, that includes us as librarians–in mind. Their goal was to embolden us, not frighten us into retreating. This presentation was a good reminder that supporting researchers doesn’t end when the research concludes. If we want to push for open access and a public discourse of scholarship we have a professional obligation promote the digital safety that allows this open exchange to flourish.

You can read notes from the panel on a collaborative GoogleDoc, view their presentation slides online, and begin thinking about how you can create digital herd immunity at your institution.

Theory as a keel: Developing a critical framework for open education, Part 2

“If open is the answer, then what is the question?” was posed by educator and researcher Catherine Cronin (National University of Ireland, Galway) in her keynote address for the Open Education Conference 2016 in Edinburgh, UK last April. This question challenges our community to explore the why behind the how driving open education initiatives, and reveals the need for a body of critical research examining the same.

Jamison Miller, Ph.D. student in the School of Education at William & Mary, hopes to develop a framework that balances critical analysis with practical implementations, and provide the open education movement with the foundation to help move it forward in a socially responsible manner. He credits his affiliation with the Global OER Graduate Network (GO-GN) with providing an invaluable support network for doctoral students studying open education. The group helped bring Jamison to Krakow last spring for the OEGlobal Conference, and will be supporting a trip to Cape Town for this year’s conference in March.

Continue reading “Theory as a keel: Developing a critical framework for open education, Part 2”

Theory as a keel: Developing a critical framework for open education

Virginians involved in education were extremely fortunate to have the 13th Annual Open Education Conference held in Richmond, at the Great Richmond Convention Center November 2nd through 4th, 2016. The conference, billed as the “premiere venue for sharing research, development, advocacy, design, and other work relating the open education,” offers librarians a unique opportunity to interface with researchers, technologists, publishers, and educators in a collaborative environment. While some of these connections happened during sessions on topics like inclusive design, open education policy, and licensing, many occurred between sessions. On the final day, I had the chance to eat lunch with several William & Mary faculty and student researchers interested in open education, along with Kathleen DeLaurenti, the librarian at William & Mary leading our OER initiatives. The lunch conversation afforded me great perspective on the challenges educators face when trying to access and utilize appropriate open education resources as alternatives in their classes, especially for advanced topic courses. I am excited to join deLaurenti and our Scholarly Communications Committee’s efforts to expand open education resources here at William & Mary, where we will be running a pilot of the Open Textbook Network Program beginning early next year.

Open education is not just about textbooks and materials, however. Among the presenters at the Open Ed Conference this year was a William & Mary Ph.D. student in the School of Education, Jamison Miller, who joins a growing contingent of open education scholars calling for a theoretical grounding to support the practicum, resource-focused open education movement, a component he feels will be critical to its long term success and sustainability.

Continue reading “Theory as a keel: Developing a critical framework for open education”