Those are good questions, but I don’t know the answers. There’s no question that the student savings would have been quite a bit higher if these professors had all adopted OERs.
Just to be clear: I’m not shilling for the inclusive access model here, just responding to Joe’s question. Like all access models, inclusive access is less than perfect.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From: "Holland, Claudia" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:56:26 +0000
Just curious, Rick, how many students received these savings and how much savings would there have been, had there been a switch to totally open resources? Not knocking the $400k savings, mind you.
Thanks,
Claudia Holland
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:56:15 +0000
At my institution, we have a group called the Course Material Services Team, which includes staff from the bookstore, the registrar’s office, campus printing and mail services, the library, and a couple of other areas. I serve on the team, as does our Copyright
& Scholarly Communication Librarian. We’ve been working for a couple of years now on strategies to reduce textbook costs for students, and we’ve found that inclusive access is – for better or worse – a much easier sell to faculty than OERs. During the school
year that just ended we had 21 courses with inclusive access arrangements – that’s not very many courses, but we calculate the total savings to students at roughly $400,000.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]