- Email: [email protected]
Closing the loop: Students, academic libraries, and textbook affordability
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Academic Librarianship journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib
Closing the loop: Students, academic libraries, and textbook affordability a,⁎
Lily Todorinova , Zara T. Wilkinson a b
b
T
Open Educational Research, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States of America Paul Robeson Library, Rutgers University-Camden, New Jersey, United States of America
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Open educational resources (OER) Textbook affordability Student survey Course redesign Assessment
This paper will summarize over 400 responses to a student questionnaire used to assess a textbook affordability program at Rutgers University. Students' responses showed that they were concerned about textbook costs, liked their open and affordable course content, and unanimously supported continuing the program. Because the Open and Affordable Textbooks program is administered through the Libraries, the survey also offers a glimpse at how textbook affordability interfaces with key library services, including collection development, teaching and learning, reserves and the visibility, use and discoverability of library resources. This article is intended to bring the conversation full circle and take steps toward defining an ecosystem of library services and activities that support textbook affordability and OER. The goal is to bring more visibility to OER programs and make sure they are integrated in foundational library operations, so that students recognize the libraries' investment in their academic success.
Introduction The rising cost of textbooks is among the most pressing issues affecting higher education today. According to reports by the U.S. Public Research Interest Group (PIRG), high textbook prices can deter students from purchasing required course materials and negatively impact their academic experiences (Senack, 2014). Many universities are embracing the use of open educational resources (OER), which are affordable or free alternatives to traditional course materials, in an attempt to lower costs, promote success and retention, and reduce soaring student loan debt (Okamoto, 2013). In 2016, Rutgers University Libraries launched the Open and Affordable Textbooks (OAT) program, which encourages faculty to replace their usual course materials with OER, library resources, course reserves, or other low or no-cost content. The Open and Affordable Textbooks (OAT) program provides $500–$1000 awards to full and part-time faculty who commit to redesigning their course or developing a new course with affordability in mind. In the first two years of the program, the Libraries awarded 57 faculty who committed to teaching 58 courses at [Rutgers University-Camden], [Rutgers University-Newark], [Rutgers University-New Brunswick] and [Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS)]. Estimates indicate that the OAT program has saved students at Rutgers University over $2 million in the same time period, impacting over 9000 students. This article describes the results of a survey administered to students in Rutgers University OAT-awarded courses. This survey received
⁎
423 responses, collecting information regarding the experiences of students in OAT courses and their perspectives on issues related to textbook affordability. The survey was part of routine assessment of the OAT program. As such, the results will help the Libraries make informed decisions about the program, as well to document its impact on the student experience. While it is always pivotal for academic libraries to be able to articulate their value on campus, recent national and state legislative efforts to promote textbook affordability make demonstrating that libraries have an important role to play in reducing overall student costs especially important (SPARC, “The Affordable College Textbook Act.”). In addition, student responses to this survey offer a glimpse at how textbook affordability interfaces with key foundational library services, including user education and the acquisition, discoverability, and use of library resources. In this respect, the results can be used to bring the conversation about OER and textbook affordability full circle to suggest that textbook affordability efforts need to be supported by all levels of library operations, including teaching and learning, collection development, and technological infrastructure, and not relegated to isolated, niche projects. Literature review Academic libraries have a mission to provide students and faculty with access to various types of collections. In many cases however, library collection development policies exclude textbooks (Lyons &
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Todorinova), [email protected] (Z.T. Wilkinson).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.03.010 Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 21 March 2019; Accepted 22 March 2019 Available online 04 April 2019 0099-1333/ Published by Elsevier Inc.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Hendrix, 2014), which students often struggle to purchase because of rising costs. Libraries limit the purchase textbooks for the same reason that students do—the cost: “With students' need for multiple textbooks for classes, high prices, the frequent appearance of new editions, and the tendency of textbooks to be stolen from academic library collections, the purchase of textbooks for student use […] has been too costprohibitive for many libraries” (Lyons & Hendrix, 2014, p. 263). Instead of purchasing textbooks, many libraries focus their efforts on providing course reserves. Course reserves enable students to access print materials for a set period of time, often within the library only, and to access digitized or digital materials such as book chapters, journal articles, and library-licensed ebooks via the library's website. Course reserves, however, come with a number of limitations. Their usefulness depends on faculty being aware of the service and willing to utilize it, and consistently providing print course reserves can pose a significant cost to libraries in terms of budget, space, and staffing (Pollitz, Christie, & Middleton, 2009). The availability of print reserves can also be a challenge, especially for high enrollment courses, as there are often only one or two copies of a textbook available for an each course. Electronic course reserves, on the other hand, can be accessed by a larger number of students and may include digitized journal articles or book chapters as well as commercially-available ebooks. There are many advantages to adopting e-textbook reserves, but such initiatives are limited by the fact all textbooks are not published as ebooks and that many publishers place restrictions on the number of users or on printing/saving. Further, auxiliary materials and homework codes are often bundled with commercially-available textbooks, and even if they can be purchased separately, they may cost more than the course text itself (Boczar & Pascual, 2017; Hendrix, Lyons, & Aronoff, 2016). Open educational resources (OER) are often credited as the ultimate long-term solution to the textbook affordability crisis. According to the Hewlett Foundation, OER are “high-quality teaching, learning, and research materials that are free for people everywhere to use and repurpose” (Open Educational Resources, n.d.). While OER may potentially reduce the cost of higher education, the use of such materials is not about cost alone. The educational and pedagogical benefits of a particular course text are just as important, if not more important, than how much it costs. Ideally, OER would offer the same level of quality as other course materials but with a better price tag. While of course this depends heavily on the materials chosen for use in individual courses, evidence does suggest that adopting OER provides students with benefits that go beyond affordability. Studies have found that undergraduate students enrolled in courses that have replaced textbooks with OER perform just as well, if not better, than their peers in other courses (Fischer, Hilton, Robinson, & Wiley, 2015). A recent study conducted at the University of Georgia found that the use of OER improved undergraduate students' end-of-course grades and reduced DFW (D, F, withdrawal) rates when compared to the same course taught with traditional materials (Colvard, Watson, & Park, 2018). While this was true of all students, the increase was particularly dramatic for students in specific populations that included Pell Granteligible students, students from underrepresented groups, and part-time students. This line of inquiry suggests that the use of OER may in fact be an “equity strategy for high education” that helps to mitigate a variety of socioeconomic factors that can impact students' ability to succeed in higher education (Colvard et al., 2018, p. 273). With the rise of OER and the prominence of national conversations about affordability in higher education, academic libraries across the United States and Canada have been positioning themselves as leaders in initiatives designed to reduce textbooks costs. Celik and Peck (2016) describe expanding course reserves at the University of California Los Angeles, noting that while textbooks have traditionally been excluded from the majority of academic and research libraries' collection-development policies, “encouraging libraries to re-evaluate and re-strategize this traditional approach to textbook purchasing and course reserves is
critical” (p. 268). Other universities have recognized the need to diversify efforts to promote affordability; in this vein, Thomas and Bernhardt (2018) describe a two-strategy to lowering textbook costs, which includes an incentive grant program and a collection development process that prioritizes buying course materials in the form of ebooks. Eighmy-Brown, McCready, and Riha (2017) describe a more comprehensive approach: the formation of a Content Services department at the University of Minnesota Libraries. The department, which includes public service points and collaborates with campus partners, employs “multiple avenues to help faculty and students put affordable content into their existing workflows” (p. 93). The creation of this new service model included re-thinking the Interlibrary Loan process at the institution, partnering with the university bookstore in order to enhance and use and visibility of library ebooks, and designing a grant program to incentivize affordable/open textbook publishing. Rutgers University opted to model their textbook affordability program on two of the earliest examples of textbook affordability initiatives, the Textbook Affordability Program at Temple University (formerly the Alternate Textbook Project) and the Open Education Initiative (OEI) at University of Massachusetts Amherst (Bell, 2007; Smith, 2018). Both of these programs provided faculty with monetary awards in order to incentivize the adoption of OER, library resources, or other free or low-cost content. Similar programs have been instituted at universities across the United States. At Rutgers University, incentive awards of $500–$1000 are paired with general library support, including consultation with subject liaisons, assistance locating OER or library-licensed course materials, and access to course reserves. The OAT program is coordinated by a team of librarians from all four campus locations and supported in various ways by subject librarians, library directors, access services staff, and business and communications staff across the university, see Appendix A for a summary of courses awarded between 2016 and 2018. Methods This survey was administered over the course of one calendar year as part of programmatic assessment of the OAT program at Rutgers University. At the end of each term between Spring 2017 and Spring 2018, an online survey was distributed to OAT courses with redesigned course materials. The Libraries' OAT committee shared the link with the faculty members teaching OAT courses, who were then asked to send the link to their students. Because the survey was administered completely online and asynchronously, students were able to take the survey at the time and location of their choice. Although this survey was administered in addition to the required course evaluations conducted by the university, the OAT committee took care to make sure the OAT survey was not easily confused with course evaluations and did not require students to repeat answers to similar questions. The survey was completely anonymous and responses were not shared with the course instructor. This ensured that responses had no impact on students' academic progress or performance in the course, and therefore presented no risk to student respondents. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Rutgers University. The survey asked students a series of questions about their textbook usage in general as well as about their experiences using open and affordable resources in their redesigned OAT courses. The survey included questions about the amount they currently spend on textbooks in an average semester; where they currently obtain their textbooks; their knowledge of and experiences related to library resources such as e-books; and their perceptions of how open and affordable materials impacted their course activities. Except for those related to informed consent, no survey questions were required, allowing students to skip any questions that they were uncomfortable answering. The full survey text can be found in Appendix B. 269
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
semesters. The survey asked students how much money they spend on all of their textbooks in a typical semester. The possible responses were provided as follows: $100 or less, $101–$200, $201–300, $301–400, $401–500, between $500 and $1000, and above $1000. The College Board estimates that the yearly books-and-supplies in-state estimate for the average full-time undergraduate student at a four-year public college is about $1298 (Collegeboard, n.d.). Thus, the OAT committee expected that responses to this question would be rather high. However, actual student responses were much more moderate, with the highest percentages of students reporting spending between $201 and $300 (32%) or between $101 and $200 (27%). Fig. 3 shows the responses for the entire group of students. When asked if they had ever been unable to purchase a textbook due to its cost, 58% of respondents selected “Yes.” Fig. 4 shows the results for the entire respondent group and Fig. 5 shows the results broken out by campus. There was interesting variation between the Rutgers University campuses in this response, with a greater number of Newark (73%) and Camden (64%) students indicating that they were unable to purchase textbooks than in other locations. This may reflect institutional priorities related to college access for low-income students, as well as the percentage of students receiving financial aid at these campuses. The high number of affirmative responses to this question may suggest an explanation for the difference in expected and actual responses to the previous question, as the survey asked students to report actual dollars spent rather than the overall cost of course materials. If students were unable to purchase some required course materials, their responses to the previous question would reflect what they were able to spend, not the overall cost of course materials required. Students were also given the option of adding an open text response to this question. In addition to general commentary on the high price of textbooks, responses touched on the need to purchase online access codes bundled with or in addition to textbooks, relying on financial aid or parental support to afford their course materials, and switching courses or working extra hours because of textbook costs. In the open responses, some students also anticipated the next question and mentioned specific ways they acquired their textbooks, such as renting, finding online pdf files, and sharing or borrowing. In a more formal question, students were asked to provide more information about where they typically acquire their textbooks. They were given four options (buying from the university bookstore, buying from an online retailer, using a library copy, or borrowing someone else's copy) and were asked to rate each as “never,” “occasionally,” or “all of the time.” Fig. 6 shows a summary of responses to this question. The majority of students opted to buy online at Amazon or similar retailer—44% of students indicated that they did so “all of the time” and 51% indicated that they did so “occasionally.” The university bookstore was another common choice (10% all of the time; 62% occasionally), followed by borrowing the text from friends (8% all of the time; 51% occasionally). Using the library seemed to be the least popular response, with 64% of students reporting that they never use the library to acquire or access their textbooks. In the optional open text response that accompanied this question, many students described renting their books and obtaining pirated pdfs from the Internet or from friends. Unfortunately, neither of these options were included in the survey as written. Although two open responses mentioned using library books if available, two others specified that using the library was unsatisfactory because required textbooks are often not available and because acquiring textbooks from the library is inconvenient for commuters. The remaining questions focused specifically on the OAT program, courses, and course materials. Students were first asked if they were aware that the course materials for their OAT course would be low-cost at the time that they registered. An overwhelming majority (77%) of students did not know that their course was designed to incorporate open and/or affordable materials at the time of registering. In the optional open-text responses that accompanied this question, some
Limitations This research project is limited by a number of factors. Because the researchers relied on each instructor sharing the survey link with their class, there could be gaps in participation even among OAT courses. Combined with the absence of authoritative data about final course enrollment, the lack of information about survey distribution means there is no way to determine the number of potential respondents. Additionally, students self-selected to take the survey, which could have biased results towards students with strong positive or negative impressions of the course material or the course itself. Since the survey only collected data from students who were already enrolled in OAT courses, the results, especially those related to textbook purchasing, are not representative of all students at Rutgers University. Future research could attempt to mitigate these limitations. A more comprehensive study could potentially include focus groups or interviews with participants in order to gather more in-depth data. In line with recent studies at other universities, future studies could also explore student GPA, drop rates, and other academic performance data in order to make comparisons between OAT and non-OAT courses (Colvard et al., 2018). Results The survey received 423 responses collected in the following academic terms: Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, and Spring 2018. Because the OAT program did not collect information about final course enrollment or about which faculty responded to the request to share the survey, no response rate could be calculated. The first few survey questions collected basic student demographic information. Because Rutgers University is a large state institution with three campuses and a health sciences division, the first question prompted students to select their location. As shown in Fig. 1, 43% of students who responded were from Camden, 28% were from New Brunswick, 27% were from Newark, and 1% were from RBHS. An additional 1% of students selected “Other” and those students that filled out the accompanying open-text response were from a single off-campus location elsewhere in New Jersey. Table 1 shows the general characteristics and differences between Rutgers University campuses. Unfortunately, the low number of responses from the RBHS limits the usefulness of these results in identifying any unique characteristics of RBHS health sciences students in OAT courses. Students were also asked to select how many semesters of college they had completed at the time they filled out the survey. As Fig. 2 shows, the largest percentages of students were in the first half of their college careers, with 28% having completed 1–2 semesters and 26% having completed 3–4
Fig. 1. Campus (by percentage). 270
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Table 1 Campus Characteristics [based on institutional data from fall 2016 via https://oirap.rutgers.edu/instchar/Factbook_PDFs/2016/2-LR-Enroll16.pdf and US World News and Report].
Camden New Brunswick Newark RBHS
Total number of undergraduate students
Residence (on or off campus)
% of students who receive financial aid
5021 33,653 8170 2515
85% off campus 43% on campus, 57% off campus 79% off campus, 21% off campus Unknown
82% 53% 79% Unknown
Fig. 4. Unable to purchase textbooks due to cost (by percentage).
Fig. 2. Semesters of college completed (by percentage).
accessed the online materials required in their OAT course. Students could select as many responses as they wanted, to account for a variety of modes of access. Accessing course materials on a laptop or tablet received the highest number of responses (53%), while accessing them on a desktop computer received a smaller number (12%). Small but significant amounts of responses were received for using a cell phone (16%) and printing online course materials (14%). Students were asked to compare the ease of using their redesigned course materials to traditional printed textbooks. They were given four course material-related activities (access course materials, read course
students specified that they found out about their professor's commitment to textbook affordability on the first day of class. Students in these comments mentioned being “grateful and glad” and “very happy” about the fact that their course materials would be free. At least one student indicated that knowing about OAT courses in advance might affect their course selection: “While I didn't know this information when registering, knowing would have increased the likelihood that I would sign up for this course.” Another question asked students to identify how they typically
Fig. 3. Average spending per semester (by percentage).
271
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 5. Campus breakdown of students unable to purchase textbook due to cost.
materials, take notes on materials, and collaborate with fellow students) and asked to indicate whether each was easier or harder with their OAT course materials. Fig. 7 shows responses to this question. Students responded positively to all course activities, with 74% of respondents finding it somewhat or much easier to access course materials, 60% finding it somewhat or much easier to read course materials, 55% finding it somewhat or much easier to take notes, and 48% finding it somewhat or much easier to collaborate. Although the percentages of students who responded negatively were much smaller, they were not insignificant. The highest number of students who responded negatively to any one activity (11%) found it somewhat or much harder to take notes on their course materials. The next two questions asked about students' use of library resources in their OAT courses. When asked whether they had used a
library ebook or other online reading (including course reserves), 21% of students said yes, 65% said no, and 14% did not know. Those students who indicated that they had used a library ebook or other online reading were asked to rate the ease of use on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (great). The majority of students rated their experience as a 4 (38%) or a 5 (31%). Students were invited to provide an optional open-text response, but only two provided specific feedback on library-provided course materials. One mentioned a streaming film that was “very delayed,” and the other reported that some readings (presumably course reserves) were “incomplete.” Finally, students were asked if it is important to them that Rutgers University continues to try to make course materials more affordable for students. A full 100% of respondents selected yes, emphasizing the importance of this initiative to Rutgers University students. As with
Fig. 6. How students acquire their textbooks.
272
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 7. Impact on course activities.
drawn about overall spending on course materials at Rutgers University. Additionally, the fact that many students do not or cannot purchase their required textbooks may account for the lower figures. The OAT program was created in response to such concerns about affordability. Overall, survey responses demonstrate that students support the OAT initiative and appreciate that Rutgers University is taking steps to reduce the impact of rising textbook prices on their education. Students in OAT courses feel positively about their redesigned courses and enjoyed the availability of online content. In particular, this survey garnered heartening results related to the ease with which students were able to access, read, and take notes on their course materials and/or collaborate with their fellow students. While these students were all from different courses taken with different professors, and therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions about such a sheer variety in course materials, respondents overall found their redesigned course materials to be much or somewhat easier to use. This indicates that OAT courses have been successful in improving the student experience while also reducing financial demands on students. The very small numbers of students who found their redesigned course materials harder to use, however, serve as a useful reminder that course materials are not one size fits all. Despite the positive reception of the OAT program and courses, the students who responded to this survey were largely unaware that their course was designed to be free or low cost. This is problematic, especially considering that some also expressed that knowing about OAT would have affected their course selection and course load decisions. These results emphasize the need to better advertise OAT and to increase the visibility of specific courses, especially those that fulfill general education or major requirements, to students and academic advisors. The OAT committee has worked with the university registrar to make it possible to designate OAT courses in the online course registration system, but it is currently unknown how many, if any, faculty have taken advantage of that opportunity. The faculty member or departmental staff must designate the course in the registration system; therefore, the Libraries are unable to be a formal part of that process at this time. Possible future directions at OAT might also include expanding the use of the OAT identifier in the course registration system to include OAT courses that continue outside of the award cycle as well
previous questions, students were provided an opportunity to add additional comments. Unsurprisingly, many responses mentioned the high cost of tuition. For example, one student wrote, “Buying textbooks is an extra stress on students! Students already have to worry about paying for tuition and should not have to pay a couple hundred dollars extra on books.” In addition, several responses specifically mentioned the impact of textbook costs on low income students who rely on financial aid. “Some students, like myself, pay for all of our books out of pocket with no help from anyone,” said one, while another said, “I am solely on Financial Aid and as it happened this year without it I have been without a book in a heavy duty class.” Three responses called for the increased usage of the library, especially course reserves. One student in particular made an emphatic argument in favor of affordable course materials and programs such as OAT: A majority of us will be graduating with a ridiculous amount of debt, which we won't be able to pay off until we'll be ready to send our own children to college, and then the cycle starts all over again! It is important to be able to save money in any situation possible, and having texts or textbooks available online is one easy way for Rutgers University to make a huge, and positive difference to its students. It shows us you care about where our money is going, and how much we are spending. Discussion Textbook affordability is clearly a major concern for students at Rutgers University. Although the overall percentage of students who reported not being able to buy their required course materials was slightly lower than in the 2014 PIRG report (Senack, 2014), the percentages for individual campuses approximated or even surpassed those figures. However, the majority of student respondents indicated spending somewhere around $101–$300 per semester– lower than the national average as reported by the College Board, which is around $1300 per academic year. Thus, it appears possible that Rutgers University students spend somewhat less than the national average on textbooks. However, because this sample is not representative of the entire Rutgers University student population, no conclusions can be
273
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 8. Library ecosystem and open educational resources/textbook affordability.
as non-OAT courses with no or low textbook costs. In addition to directly benefiting students in terms of the ability to maximize cost savings, advertising the OAT program and associated courses could also help the Libraries generate goodwill and document impact as both a cost-saving measure and a partner in pedagogical innovation. Outside of the Libraries' ownership of the OAT program, library resources and services were not prominent in the results of this survey. Students reported that they rarely use the library to acquire their course materials, and the majority of respondents indicated that their OAT courses did not use online content provided through the library, including course reserves. This was surprising, as the OAT committee felt that the faculty members who had received OAT awards were largely reliant on library resources rather than OER and other free/affordable course materials. Although several students did mention reserves positively in their open-text responses, even going as far as recommending that the university require that all textbooks be on reserve in the library, their comments seemed to focus on print reserves. This may suggest that students are confused about whether online resources do or do not come from the library, and that they may be using library resources without understanding their source. OAT awardees are encouraged to use library resources in their courses, but clearly the Libraries could benefit from providing further education for both faculty and students about the use of course reserves, including electronic
reserves, and other online resources. Survey results have important implications for library services outside of the OAT program. Several of the responses to the open-text questions indicate that students are turning to illegal methods of acquiring their textbooks or other course materials, such as by finding pirated copies of course materials online. As pointed out in discussions of researchers' use of social media to obtain pirated copies of materials, and particularly the #icanhazpdf hashtag on Twitter, every resource obtained through these methods may represent a request that could have been submitted to the library (Gardner & Gardner, 2017). Further research could gather more information about what types of course materials are most often obtained through illegal means in order to determine if course reserves or interlibrary loan could meet students' needs and remove the temptation to turn to other sources. Further, this may indicate a need to consider how library policies contribute to the perceived need for this kind of workaround. At OAT, for example, the Libraries will not fulfill interlibrary loan requests for any book deemed to be a textbook. As a result, students have few options for textbooks that are not widely available through consortial lending arrangements. The reliance on piracy suggested by this study may also indicate an opportunity to expand the library's information literacy offerings to include educating students about ethical uses of information, intellectual property, and copyright. Other implications for library
274
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
services include making sure that library websites and online services can meet the needs of students who reported accessing their course materials on their phones at least some of the time, as well as those who preferred printed versions of their course materials. Overall, one major potential takeaway from these survey results is that, despite the increasing popularity of affordable or open textbook programs in academic libraries, textbook affordability cannot be relegated to a single initiative. Programs such as OAT interact with many other library services and therefore need to be considered - and supported - in conjunction with other areas of library operations. The operational needs of the OAT program itself require the support of not only the librarians who serve on the committee, but also the Libraries administration and the business office. In order to be truly effective, program promotion and faculty education require the departmental reach and subject knowledge of all liaison librarians. Further, any increased reliance on library resources as affordable alternatives to textbooks has practical and financial implications that reverberate through the Libraries. Even the expanded use of course reserves requires user education, technical infrastructure, and appropriate levels of staffing in addition to a robust collection. Furthermore, the use of ebooks and other licensed materials requires a combination of librarian expertise, a process for faculty to request titles, dedicated funding, and vendor agreements that allow multiple users with few or no limitations on access. Faculty may also need support in the areas of instructional design, the use of course management systems, research guides or other aids for discovery of required materials, and the creation of original course materials such as OER or accompanying videos. It seems clear that in order to truly take up the mantle of textbook affordability, academic libraries must set priorities that impact all levels of library operations—from the business office and acquisitions to
liaison librarians and those in charge of course reserves. Textbook affordability and OER promotion efforts overlap with many, if not all, core library services and, therefore, it is important for library administrators to have conversations about how these initiatives intersect with all library systems. Fig. 8 presents an attempt to graphically represent the library ecosystem and, in particular, areas of operations that affect or are affected by the textbook affordability initiatives at Rutgers University. Conclusion This survey provides a snapshot of textbook affordability efforts at Rutgers University, as well as how students perceive their redesigned and affordable courses. The responses highlight the importance of initiatives such as OAT to students and emphasize the continual problems posed by high textbook costs. Notably, the majority of students reported that their redesigned course materials provided an improved experience in terms of access, reading, taking notes, and collaborating, indicating that textbook affordability initiatives can offer benefits beyond the financial. However, it is clear that the Libraries have more work to do in terms of advertising OAT to students and in leading broader affordability initiatives on Rutgers University campuses. Students do not necessarily identify the library with textbook affordability, and they may not be familiar with how library resources and services can help them save money. By finding ways to demonstrate and actively communicate its contribution to these issues, the Libraries would be better positioned as a campus partner in areas such as education, pedagogy, and student advocacy. In addition, the OAT program might benefit from being more fully incorporated into a larger suite of library services that focus on affordability and student success.
Appendix A. OAT awards summary Students impacted OAT awards, 2016–2017
Introduction to Psychology Psychology and the Health Sciences Microbiology and Its Applications Lab Perception Latin American Politics Literature, the Romantic Period Perspectives on History Social Entrepreneurship Introduction to Chemistry Introduction to Macroeconomics Introduction to Human Evolution Law and Politics Elementary German, Intermediate German Intermediate and Advanced Korean Experimental Biochemistry Sociology of Women Agriculture and Food Systems Sustainability and Food Waste General Physics Applied Statistics Research Methods for the Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences History & Modern Viewpoints of Psychology General Chemistry Developmental Psychology Shakespeare Introduction to Global Literature Introduction to Public Administration Statistical Methods for Business Applications Introduction to Sig Sigma Psychiatry Clerkship Emergency Medicine/Pharmacology Development Across the Lifespan
275
200 200 135 30 40 20 20 8 1600 500 750 360 120 100 60 200 45 45 300 150 150 80 200 70 40 40 15 2000 170 200 20 65
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson OAT awards, 2017–2018
Total
Pediatric Emergency Interventional Radiology Introduction to Social Work Groups at Risk Microeconomics/Macroeconomics Electronic Literature and Performance Financial Management for Public Program Mathematics Reasoning and Proofs Forensic Science Methods & Techniques Spanish for the Health Professions Digital Marketing Strategy Community Health Nursing/Global Health (THEORY) LGBTQ and Popular Culture American Horror Story Introduction to Politics Special Topics in Psychology, Psychology of Religion Introduction to LGBTQ Studies Global Public Health Introduction to the Study of Language Music History I and II Transforming the Global Environment Development of US II Extended Analytical Physics I and II Survey of English Literature Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Social Foundations of Education
100 60 250 200 150 20 60 75 80 150 70 40 20 25 20 40 60 40 100 70 750 100 324 40 60 100 9188
Appendix B. Survey questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9.
10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
Please choose your campus Please select your course from the list What is your major? (Humanities, Social Sciences, Science, Health Science, Business, Other) How many semesters of college have you completed? (1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10, more than 10) How much do you spend on all of your textbooks in a typical semester? ($100 or less, $101–$200, $201–$300, $301–$400, $401–$500, more than $500 but less than $1000, over $1000, I don't know) Have you ever been unable to purchase a textbook due to its cost? (Yes, No) How do you typically acquire your textbooks? (All of the time, Occasionally, Never) 1. I buy them from the University bookstore 2. I buy them online (Amazon, or other) 3. I use a library copy (including course reserves) 4. I borrow someone else's copy Your course's materials were designed to be free or very low-cost to access, compared to conventional textbooks and other course materials. When you first registered for the course, were you aware that the materials would be reduced-cost digital materials? (Yes, No) How do you typically access this course's online materials? Choose the method(s) you use most. 1. On my cell phone 2. On my laptop or tablet 3. On my desktop at home 4. On someone else's computer (for example, a. lab, library, or friend's computer) 5. I use a printed version Compared to traditional printed textbooks or readings used in your other courses, did this course's online materials make it easier or harder to do the following activities? (Much harder, Somewhat harder, The same, Somewhat easier, Much easier) 1. Access course materials 2. Read course materials 3. Take notes 4. Collaborate with other students Did you use a library e-book or other online reading provided by the library (through course reserves or library databases) for your course? (Yes, No, I don't know) If Yes, how would you rate the ease-of-use of the library e-book or other online reading? (on a scale of 1, bad, to 5, great) Is it important to you that Rutgers University continues to try to make course materials more affordable for students? (Yes, No) Please tell us anything else about your experience with the course materials in this class.
through expansion of course reserves: The case of UCLA Library's course reserves via strategic partnership with the campus independent bookstore. Technical Services Quarterly, 33(3), 268–278. Collegeboard, (n.d.) “Quick guide: College costs.” Retrieved from https://bigfuture. collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/quick-guide-college-costs. Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Park, H. (2018). The impact of open educational resources on various student success metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 262–276. Eighmy-Brown, M., McCready, K., & Riha, E. (2017). Textbook access and affordability
References Bell, S. (2007). The textbook affordability project at Temple Libraries: About the project. Retrieved from http://guides.temple.edu/c.php?g=229152&p=1520174. Boczar, J., & Pascual, L. (2017). E-books for the classroom and open access textbooks: Two ways to help students save money on textbooks. The Serials Librarian, 72(1–4), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2017.1309830. Celik, O., & Peck, R. (2016). If you expand, they will come: Textbook affordability
276
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson through academic library services: A department develops strategies to meet the needs of students. Journal of Access Services, 14(3), 93–113. Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III, Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015, December). A multiinstitutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159–172. Gardner, C. C., & Gardner, G. J. (2017). Fast and furious (at publishers): The motivations behind crowdsourced research sharing. College & Research Libraries, 78(2). Hendrix, D., Lyons, C., & Aronoff, N. (2016). The library as textbook provider: Administering and assessing a student-based e-textbook pilot. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 23(3), 265–294. Hewlett Foundation Open educational resources. Retrieved from https://hewlett.org/ strategy/open-educational-resources/#overview. Lyons, C., & Hendrix, D. (2014). Textbook affordability: Is there a role for the library? The Serials Librarian, 66(1–4), 262–267. Okamoto, K. (2013). Making higher education more affordable, one course reading at a time: Academic libraries as key advocates for open access textbooks and educational
resources. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267–283. Pollitz, J., Christie, A., & Middleton, C. (2009). Management of library course reserves and the textbook affordability crisis. Journal of Access Services, 6(4), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367960903149268. Senack, E. (2014). Fixing the broken textbook market. US Public Interest Research Group, Student PIRG. Smith, J. (2018). Seeking alternatives to high-cost textbooks: Six years of the Open Education Initiative at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. OER: A field guide for academic librarians (pp. 71). . Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ librarian_pubs/71. SPARC The affordable college textbook act. Retrieved from https://sparcopen.org/ourwork/affordable-college-textbook-act. Thomas, W., & Bernhardt, B. (2018). Helping keep the costs of textbooks for students down: Two approaches. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07317131.2018.1456844.
277
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Academic Librarianship journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib
Closing the loop: Students, academic libraries, and textbook affordability a,⁎
Lily Todorinova , Zara T. Wilkinson a b
b
T
Open Educational Research, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States of America Paul Robeson Library, Rutgers University-Camden, New Jersey, United States of America
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Open educational resources (OER) Textbook affordability Student survey Course redesign Assessment
This paper will summarize over 400 responses to a student questionnaire used to assess a textbook affordability program at Rutgers University. Students' responses showed that they were concerned about textbook costs, liked their open and affordable course content, and unanimously supported continuing the program. Because the Open and Affordable Textbooks program is administered through the Libraries, the survey also offers a glimpse at how textbook affordability interfaces with key library services, including collection development, teaching and learning, reserves and the visibility, use and discoverability of library resources. This article is intended to bring the conversation full circle and take steps toward defining an ecosystem of library services and activities that support textbook affordability and OER. The goal is to bring more visibility to OER programs and make sure they are integrated in foundational library operations, so that students recognize the libraries' investment in their academic success.
Introduction The rising cost of textbooks is among the most pressing issues affecting higher education today. According to reports by the U.S. Public Research Interest Group (PIRG), high textbook prices can deter students from purchasing required course materials and negatively impact their academic experiences (Senack, 2014). Many universities are embracing the use of open educational resources (OER), which are affordable or free alternatives to traditional course materials, in an attempt to lower costs, promote success and retention, and reduce soaring student loan debt (Okamoto, 2013). In 2016, Rutgers University Libraries launched the Open and Affordable Textbooks (OAT) program, which encourages faculty to replace their usual course materials with OER, library resources, course reserves, or other low or no-cost content. The Open and Affordable Textbooks (OAT) program provides $500–$1000 awards to full and part-time faculty who commit to redesigning their course or developing a new course with affordability in mind. In the first two years of the program, the Libraries awarded 57 faculty who committed to teaching 58 courses at [Rutgers University-Camden], [Rutgers University-Newark], [Rutgers University-New Brunswick] and [Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS)]. Estimates indicate that the OAT program has saved students at Rutgers University over $2 million in the same time period, impacting over 9000 students. This article describes the results of a survey administered to students in Rutgers University OAT-awarded courses. This survey received
⁎
423 responses, collecting information regarding the experiences of students in OAT courses and their perspectives on issues related to textbook affordability. The survey was part of routine assessment of the OAT program. As such, the results will help the Libraries make informed decisions about the program, as well to document its impact on the student experience. While it is always pivotal for academic libraries to be able to articulate their value on campus, recent national and state legislative efforts to promote textbook affordability make demonstrating that libraries have an important role to play in reducing overall student costs especially important (SPARC, “The Affordable College Textbook Act.”). In addition, student responses to this survey offer a glimpse at how textbook affordability interfaces with key foundational library services, including user education and the acquisition, discoverability, and use of library resources. In this respect, the results can be used to bring the conversation about OER and textbook affordability full circle to suggest that textbook affordability efforts need to be supported by all levels of library operations, including teaching and learning, collection development, and technological infrastructure, and not relegated to isolated, niche projects. Literature review Academic libraries have a mission to provide students and faculty with access to various types of collections. In many cases however, library collection development policies exclude textbooks (Lyons &
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Todorinova), [email protected] (Z.T. Wilkinson).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.03.010 Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 21 March 2019; Accepted 22 March 2019 Available online 04 April 2019 0099-1333/ Published by Elsevier Inc.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Hendrix, 2014), which students often struggle to purchase because of rising costs. Libraries limit the purchase textbooks for the same reason that students do—the cost: “With students' need for multiple textbooks for classes, high prices, the frequent appearance of new editions, and the tendency of textbooks to be stolen from academic library collections, the purchase of textbooks for student use […] has been too costprohibitive for many libraries” (Lyons & Hendrix, 2014, p. 263). Instead of purchasing textbooks, many libraries focus their efforts on providing course reserves. Course reserves enable students to access print materials for a set period of time, often within the library only, and to access digitized or digital materials such as book chapters, journal articles, and library-licensed ebooks via the library's website. Course reserves, however, come with a number of limitations. Their usefulness depends on faculty being aware of the service and willing to utilize it, and consistently providing print course reserves can pose a significant cost to libraries in terms of budget, space, and staffing (Pollitz, Christie, & Middleton, 2009). The availability of print reserves can also be a challenge, especially for high enrollment courses, as there are often only one or two copies of a textbook available for an each course. Electronic course reserves, on the other hand, can be accessed by a larger number of students and may include digitized journal articles or book chapters as well as commercially-available ebooks. There are many advantages to adopting e-textbook reserves, but such initiatives are limited by the fact all textbooks are not published as ebooks and that many publishers place restrictions on the number of users or on printing/saving. Further, auxiliary materials and homework codes are often bundled with commercially-available textbooks, and even if they can be purchased separately, they may cost more than the course text itself (Boczar & Pascual, 2017; Hendrix, Lyons, & Aronoff, 2016). Open educational resources (OER) are often credited as the ultimate long-term solution to the textbook affordability crisis. According to the Hewlett Foundation, OER are “high-quality teaching, learning, and research materials that are free for people everywhere to use and repurpose” (Open Educational Resources, n.d.). While OER may potentially reduce the cost of higher education, the use of such materials is not about cost alone. The educational and pedagogical benefits of a particular course text are just as important, if not more important, than how much it costs. Ideally, OER would offer the same level of quality as other course materials but with a better price tag. While of course this depends heavily on the materials chosen for use in individual courses, evidence does suggest that adopting OER provides students with benefits that go beyond affordability. Studies have found that undergraduate students enrolled in courses that have replaced textbooks with OER perform just as well, if not better, than their peers in other courses (Fischer, Hilton, Robinson, & Wiley, 2015). A recent study conducted at the University of Georgia found that the use of OER improved undergraduate students' end-of-course grades and reduced DFW (D, F, withdrawal) rates when compared to the same course taught with traditional materials (Colvard, Watson, & Park, 2018). While this was true of all students, the increase was particularly dramatic for students in specific populations that included Pell Granteligible students, students from underrepresented groups, and part-time students. This line of inquiry suggests that the use of OER may in fact be an “equity strategy for high education” that helps to mitigate a variety of socioeconomic factors that can impact students' ability to succeed in higher education (Colvard et al., 2018, p. 273). With the rise of OER and the prominence of national conversations about affordability in higher education, academic libraries across the United States and Canada have been positioning themselves as leaders in initiatives designed to reduce textbooks costs. Celik and Peck (2016) describe expanding course reserves at the University of California Los Angeles, noting that while textbooks have traditionally been excluded from the majority of academic and research libraries' collection-development policies, “encouraging libraries to re-evaluate and re-strategize this traditional approach to textbook purchasing and course reserves is
critical” (p. 268). Other universities have recognized the need to diversify efforts to promote affordability; in this vein, Thomas and Bernhardt (2018) describe a two-strategy to lowering textbook costs, which includes an incentive grant program and a collection development process that prioritizes buying course materials in the form of ebooks. Eighmy-Brown, McCready, and Riha (2017) describe a more comprehensive approach: the formation of a Content Services department at the University of Minnesota Libraries. The department, which includes public service points and collaborates with campus partners, employs “multiple avenues to help faculty and students put affordable content into their existing workflows” (p. 93). The creation of this new service model included re-thinking the Interlibrary Loan process at the institution, partnering with the university bookstore in order to enhance and use and visibility of library ebooks, and designing a grant program to incentivize affordable/open textbook publishing. Rutgers University opted to model their textbook affordability program on two of the earliest examples of textbook affordability initiatives, the Textbook Affordability Program at Temple University (formerly the Alternate Textbook Project) and the Open Education Initiative (OEI) at University of Massachusetts Amherst (Bell, 2007; Smith, 2018). Both of these programs provided faculty with monetary awards in order to incentivize the adoption of OER, library resources, or other free or low-cost content. Similar programs have been instituted at universities across the United States. At Rutgers University, incentive awards of $500–$1000 are paired with general library support, including consultation with subject liaisons, assistance locating OER or library-licensed course materials, and access to course reserves. The OAT program is coordinated by a team of librarians from all four campus locations and supported in various ways by subject librarians, library directors, access services staff, and business and communications staff across the university, see Appendix A for a summary of courses awarded between 2016 and 2018. Methods This survey was administered over the course of one calendar year as part of programmatic assessment of the OAT program at Rutgers University. At the end of each term between Spring 2017 and Spring 2018, an online survey was distributed to OAT courses with redesigned course materials. The Libraries' OAT committee shared the link with the faculty members teaching OAT courses, who were then asked to send the link to their students. Because the survey was administered completely online and asynchronously, students were able to take the survey at the time and location of their choice. Although this survey was administered in addition to the required course evaluations conducted by the university, the OAT committee took care to make sure the OAT survey was not easily confused with course evaluations and did not require students to repeat answers to similar questions. The survey was completely anonymous and responses were not shared with the course instructor. This ensured that responses had no impact on students' academic progress or performance in the course, and therefore presented no risk to student respondents. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Rutgers University. The survey asked students a series of questions about their textbook usage in general as well as about their experiences using open and affordable resources in their redesigned OAT courses. The survey included questions about the amount they currently spend on textbooks in an average semester; where they currently obtain their textbooks; their knowledge of and experiences related to library resources such as e-books; and their perceptions of how open and affordable materials impacted their course activities. Except for those related to informed consent, no survey questions were required, allowing students to skip any questions that they were uncomfortable answering. The full survey text can be found in Appendix B. 269
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
semesters. The survey asked students how much money they spend on all of their textbooks in a typical semester. The possible responses were provided as follows: $100 or less, $101–$200, $201–300, $301–400, $401–500, between $500 and $1000, and above $1000. The College Board estimates that the yearly books-and-supplies in-state estimate for the average full-time undergraduate student at a four-year public college is about $1298 (Collegeboard, n.d.). Thus, the OAT committee expected that responses to this question would be rather high. However, actual student responses were much more moderate, with the highest percentages of students reporting spending between $201 and $300 (32%) or between $101 and $200 (27%). Fig. 3 shows the responses for the entire group of students. When asked if they had ever been unable to purchase a textbook due to its cost, 58% of respondents selected “Yes.” Fig. 4 shows the results for the entire respondent group and Fig. 5 shows the results broken out by campus. There was interesting variation between the Rutgers University campuses in this response, with a greater number of Newark (73%) and Camden (64%) students indicating that they were unable to purchase textbooks than in other locations. This may reflect institutional priorities related to college access for low-income students, as well as the percentage of students receiving financial aid at these campuses. The high number of affirmative responses to this question may suggest an explanation for the difference in expected and actual responses to the previous question, as the survey asked students to report actual dollars spent rather than the overall cost of course materials. If students were unable to purchase some required course materials, their responses to the previous question would reflect what they were able to spend, not the overall cost of course materials required. Students were also given the option of adding an open text response to this question. In addition to general commentary on the high price of textbooks, responses touched on the need to purchase online access codes bundled with or in addition to textbooks, relying on financial aid or parental support to afford their course materials, and switching courses or working extra hours because of textbook costs. In the open responses, some students also anticipated the next question and mentioned specific ways they acquired their textbooks, such as renting, finding online pdf files, and sharing or borrowing. In a more formal question, students were asked to provide more information about where they typically acquire their textbooks. They were given four options (buying from the university bookstore, buying from an online retailer, using a library copy, or borrowing someone else's copy) and were asked to rate each as “never,” “occasionally,” or “all of the time.” Fig. 6 shows a summary of responses to this question. The majority of students opted to buy online at Amazon or similar retailer—44% of students indicated that they did so “all of the time” and 51% indicated that they did so “occasionally.” The university bookstore was another common choice (10% all of the time; 62% occasionally), followed by borrowing the text from friends (8% all of the time; 51% occasionally). Using the library seemed to be the least popular response, with 64% of students reporting that they never use the library to acquire or access their textbooks. In the optional open text response that accompanied this question, many students described renting their books and obtaining pirated pdfs from the Internet or from friends. Unfortunately, neither of these options were included in the survey as written. Although two open responses mentioned using library books if available, two others specified that using the library was unsatisfactory because required textbooks are often not available and because acquiring textbooks from the library is inconvenient for commuters. The remaining questions focused specifically on the OAT program, courses, and course materials. Students were first asked if they were aware that the course materials for their OAT course would be low-cost at the time that they registered. An overwhelming majority (77%) of students did not know that their course was designed to incorporate open and/or affordable materials at the time of registering. In the optional open-text responses that accompanied this question, some
Limitations This research project is limited by a number of factors. Because the researchers relied on each instructor sharing the survey link with their class, there could be gaps in participation even among OAT courses. Combined with the absence of authoritative data about final course enrollment, the lack of information about survey distribution means there is no way to determine the number of potential respondents. Additionally, students self-selected to take the survey, which could have biased results towards students with strong positive or negative impressions of the course material or the course itself. Since the survey only collected data from students who were already enrolled in OAT courses, the results, especially those related to textbook purchasing, are not representative of all students at Rutgers University. Future research could attempt to mitigate these limitations. A more comprehensive study could potentially include focus groups or interviews with participants in order to gather more in-depth data. In line with recent studies at other universities, future studies could also explore student GPA, drop rates, and other academic performance data in order to make comparisons between OAT and non-OAT courses (Colvard et al., 2018). Results The survey received 423 responses collected in the following academic terms: Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, and Spring 2018. Because the OAT program did not collect information about final course enrollment or about which faculty responded to the request to share the survey, no response rate could be calculated. The first few survey questions collected basic student demographic information. Because Rutgers University is a large state institution with three campuses and a health sciences division, the first question prompted students to select their location. As shown in Fig. 1, 43% of students who responded were from Camden, 28% were from New Brunswick, 27% were from Newark, and 1% were from RBHS. An additional 1% of students selected “Other” and those students that filled out the accompanying open-text response were from a single off-campus location elsewhere in New Jersey. Table 1 shows the general characteristics and differences between Rutgers University campuses. Unfortunately, the low number of responses from the RBHS limits the usefulness of these results in identifying any unique characteristics of RBHS health sciences students in OAT courses. Students were also asked to select how many semesters of college they had completed at the time they filled out the survey. As Fig. 2 shows, the largest percentages of students were in the first half of their college careers, with 28% having completed 1–2 semesters and 26% having completed 3–4
Fig. 1. Campus (by percentage). 270
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Table 1 Campus Characteristics [based on institutional data from fall 2016 via https://oirap.rutgers.edu/instchar/Factbook_PDFs/2016/2-LR-Enroll16.pdf and US World News and Report].
Camden New Brunswick Newark RBHS
Total number of undergraduate students
Residence (on or off campus)
% of students who receive financial aid
5021 33,653 8170 2515
85% off campus 43% on campus, 57% off campus 79% off campus, 21% off campus Unknown
82% 53% 79% Unknown
Fig. 4. Unable to purchase textbooks due to cost (by percentage).
Fig. 2. Semesters of college completed (by percentage).
accessed the online materials required in their OAT course. Students could select as many responses as they wanted, to account for a variety of modes of access. Accessing course materials on a laptop or tablet received the highest number of responses (53%), while accessing them on a desktop computer received a smaller number (12%). Small but significant amounts of responses were received for using a cell phone (16%) and printing online course materials (14%). Students were asked to compare the ease of using their redesigned course materials to traditional printed textbooks. They were given four course material-related activities (access course materials, read course
students specified that they found out about their professor's commitment to textbook affordability on the first day of class. Students in these comments mentioned being “grateful and glad” and “very happy” about the fact that their course materials would be free. At least one student indicated that knowing about OAT courses in advance might affect their course selection: “While I didn't know this information when registering, knowing would have increased the likelihood that I would sign up for this course.” Another question asked students to identify how they typically
Fig. 3. Average spending per semester (by percentage).
271
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 5. Campus breakdown of students unable to purchase textbook due to cost.
materials, take notes on materials, and collaborate with fellow students) and asked to indicate whether each was easier or harder with their OAT course materials. Fig. 7 shows responses to this question. Students responded positively to all course activities, with 74% of respondents finding it somewhat or much easier to access course materials, 60% finding it somewhat or much easier to read course materials, 55% finding it somewhat or much easier to take notes, and 48% finding it somewhat or much easier to collaborate. Although the percentages of students who responded negatively were much smaller, they were not insignificant. The highest number of students who responded negatively to any one activity (11%) found it somewhat or much harder to take notes on their course materials. The next two questions asked about students' use of library resources in their OAT courses. When asked whether they had used a
library ebook or other online reading (including course reserves), 21% of students said yes, 65% said no, and 14% did not know. Those students who indicated that they had used a library ebook or other online reading were asked to rate the ease of use on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (great). The majority of students rated their experience as a 4 (38%) or a 5 (31%). Students were invited to provide an optional open-text response, but only two provided specific feedback on library-provided course materials. One mentioned a streaming film that was “very delayed,” and the other reported that some readings (presumably course reserves) were “incomplete.” Finally, students were asked if it is important to them that Rutgers University continues to try to make course materials more affordable for students. A full 100% of respondents selected yes, emphasizing the importance of this initiative to Rutgers University students. As with
Fig. 6. How students acquire their textbooks.
272
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 7. Impact on course activities.
drawn about overall spending on course materials at Rutgers University. Additionally, the fact that many students do not or cannot purchase their required textbooks may account for the lower figures. The OAT program was created in response to such concerns about affordability. Overall, survey responses demonstrate that students support the OAT initiative and appreciate that Rutgers University is taking steps to reduce the impact of rising textbook prices on their education. Students in OAT courses feel positively about their redesigned courses and enjoyed the availability of online content. In particular, this survey garnered heartening results related to the ease with which students were able to access, read, and take notes on their course materials and/or collaborate with their fellow students. While these students were all from different courses taken with different professors, and therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions about such a sheer variety in course materials, respondents overall found their redesigned course materials to be much or somewhat easier to use. This indicates that OAT courses have been successful in improving the student experience while also reducing financial demands on students. The very small numbers of students who found their redesigned course materials harder to use, however, serve as a useful reminder that course materials are not one size fits all. Despite the positive reception of the OAT program and courses, the students who responded to this survey were largely unaware that their course was designed to be free or low cost. This is problematic, especially considering that some also expressed that knowing about OAT would have affected their course selection and course load decisions. These results emphasize the need to better advertise OAT and to increase the visibility of specific courses, especially those that fulfill general education or major requirements, to students and academic advisors. The OAT committee has worked with the university registrar to make it possible to designate OAT courses in the online course registration system, but it is currently unknown how many, if any, faculty have taken advantage of that opportunity. The faculty member or departmental staff must designate the course in the registration system; therefore, the Libraries are unable to be a formal part of that process at this time. Possible future directions at OAT might also include expanding the use of the OAT identifier in the course registration system to include OAT courses that continue outside of the award cycle as well
previous questions, students were provided an opportunity to add additional comments. Unsurprisingly, many responses mentioned the high cost of tuition. For example, one student wrote, “Buying textbooks is an extra stress on students! Students already have to worry about paying for tuition and should not have to pay a couple hundred dollars extra on books.” In addition, several responses specifically mentioned the impact of textbook costs on low income students who rely on financial aid. “Some students, like myself, pay for all of our books out of pocket with no help from anyone,” said one, while another said, “I am solely on Financial Aid and as it happened this year without it I have been without a book in a heavy duty class.” Three responses called for the increased usage of the library, especially course reserves. One student in particular made an emphatic argument in favor of affordable course materials and programs such as OAT: A majority of us will be graduating with a ridiculous amount of debt, which we won't be able to pay off until we'll be ready to send our own children to college, and then the cycle starts all over again! It is important to be able to save money in any situation possible, and having texts or textbooks available online is one easy way for Rutgers University to make a huge, and positive difference to its students. It shows us you care about where our money is going, and how much we are spending. Discussion Textbook affordability is clearly a major concern for students at Rutgers University. Although the overall percentage of students who reported not being able to buy their required course materials was slightly lower than in the 2014 PIRG report (Senack, 2014), the percentages for individual campuses approximated or even surpassed those figures. However, the majority of student respondents indicated spending somewhere around $101–$300 per semester– lower than the national average as reported by the College Board, which is around $1300 per academic year. Thus, it appears possible that Rutgers University students spend somewhat less than the national average on textbooks. However, because this sample is not representative of the entire Rutgers University student population, no conclusions can be
273
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
Fig. 8. Library ecosystem and open educational resources/textbook affordability.
as non-OAT courses with no or low textbook costs. In addition to directly benefiting students in terms of the ability to maximize cost savings, advertising the OAT program and associated courses could also help the Libraries generate goodwill and document impact as both a cost-saving measure and a partner in pedagogical innovation. Outside of the Libraries' ownership of the OAT program, library resources and services were not prominent in the results of this survey. Students reported that they rarely use the library to acquire their course materials, and the majority of respondents indicated that their OAT courses did not use online content provided through the library, including course reserves. This was surprising, as the OAT committee felt that the faculty members who had received OAT awards were largely reliant on library resources rather than OER and other free/affordable course materials. Although several students did mention reserves positively in their open-text responses, even going as far as recommending that the university require that all textbooks be on reserve in the library, their comments seemed to focus on print reserves. This may suggest that students are confused about whether online resources do or do not come from the library, and that they may be using library resources without understanding their source. OAT awardees are encouraged to use library resources in their courses, but clearly the Libraries could benefit from providing further education for both faculty and students about the use of course reserves, including electronic
reserves, and other online resources. Survey results have important implications for library services outside of the OAT program. Several of the responses to the open-text questions indicate that students are turning to illegal methods of acquiring their textbooks or other course materials, such as by finding pirated copies of course materials online. As pointed out in discussions of researchers' use of social media to obtain pirated copies of materials, and particularly the #icanhazpdf hashtag on Twitter, every resource obtained through these methods may represent a request that could have been submitted to the library (Gardner & Gardner, 2017). Further research could gather more information about what types of course materials are most often obtained through illegal means in order to determine if course reserves or interlibrary loan could meet students' needs and remove the temptation to turn to other sources. Further, this may indicate a need to consider how library policies contribute to the perceived need for this kind of workaround. At OAT, for example, the Libraries will not fulfill interlibrary loan requests for any book deemed to be a textbook. As a result, students have few options for textbooks that are not widely available through consortial lending arrangements. The reliance on piracy suggested by this study may also indicate an opportunity to expand the library's information literacy offerings to include educating students about ethical uses of information, intellectual property, and copyright. Other implications for library
274
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson
services include making sure that library websites and online services can meet the needs of students who reported accessing their course materials on their phones at least some of the time, as well as those who preferred printed versions of their course materials. Overall, one major potential takeaway from these survey results is that, despite the increasing popularity of affordable or open textbook programs in academic libraries, textbook affordability cannot be relegated to a single initiative. Programs such as OAT interact with many other library services and therefore need to be considered - and supported - in conjunction with other areas of library operations. The operational needs of the OAT program itself require the support of not only the librarians who serve on the committee, but also the Libraries administration and the business office. In order to be truly effective, program promotion and faculty education require the departmental reach and subject knowledge of all liaison librarians. Further, any increased reliance on library resources as affordable alternatives to textbooks has practical and financial implications that reverberate through the Libraries. Even the expanded use of course reserves requires user education, technical infrastructure, and appropriate levels of staffing in addition to a robust collection. Furthermore, the use of ebooks and other licensed materials requires a combination of librarian expertise, a process for faculty to request titles, dedicated funding, and vendor agreements that allow multiple users with few or no limitations on access. Faculty may also need support in the areas of instructional design, the use of course management systems, research guides or other aids for discovery of required materials, and the creation of original course materials such as OER or accompanying videos. It seems clear that in order to truly take up the mantle of textbook affordability, academic libraries must set priorities that impact all levels of library operations—from the business office and acquisitions to
liaison librarians and those in charge of course reserves. Textbook affordability and OER promotion efforts overlap with many, if not all, core library services and, therefore, it is important for library administrators to have conversations about how these initiatives intersect with all library systems. Fig. 8 presents an attempt to graphically represent the library ecosystem and, in particular, areas of operations that affect or are affected by the textbook affordability initiatives at Rutgers University. Conclusion This survey provides a snapshot of textbook affordability efforts at Rutgers University, as well as how students perceive their redesigned and affordable courses. The responses highlight the importance of initiatives such as OAT to students and emphasize the continual problems posed by high textbook costs. Notably, the majority of students reported that their redesigned course materials provided an improved experience in terms of access, reading, taking notes, and collaborating, indicating that textbook affordability initiatives can offer benefits beyond the financial. However, it is clear that the Libraries have more work to do in terms of advertising OAT to students and in leading broader affordability initiatives on Rutgers University campuses. Students do not necessarily identify the library with textbook affordability, and they may not be familiar with how library resources and services can help them save money. By finding ways to demonstrate and actively communicate its contribution to these issues, the Libraries would be better positioned as a campus partner in areas such as education, pedagogy, and student advocacy. In addition, the OAT program might benefit from being more fully incorporated into a larger suite of library services that focus on affordability and student success.
Appendix A. OAT awards summary Students impacted OAT awards, 2016–2017
Introduction to Psychology Psychology and the Health Sciences Microbiology and Its Applications Lab Perception Latin American Politics Literature, the Romantic Period Perspectives on History Social Entrepreneurship Introduction to Chemistry Introduction to Macroeconomics Introduction to Human Evolution Law and Politics Elementary German, Intermediate German Intermediate and Advanced Korean Experimental Biochemistry Sociology of Women Agriculture and Food Systems Sustainability and Food Waste General Physics Applied Statistics Research Methods for the Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences History & Modern Viewpoints of Psychology General Chemistry Developmental Psychology Shakespeare Introduction to Global Literature Introduction to Public Administration Statistical Methods for Business Applications Introduction to Sig Sigma Psychiatry Clerkship Emergency Medicine/Pharmacology Development Across the Lifespan
275
200 200 135 30 40 20 20 8 1600 500 750 360 120 100 60 200 45 45 300 150 150 80 200 70 40 40 15 2000 170 200 20 65
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson OAT awards, 2017–2018
Total
Pediatric Emergency Interventional Radiology Introduction to Social Work Groups at Risk Microeconomics/Macroeconomics Electronic Literature and Performance Financial Management for Public Program Mathematics Reasoning and Proofs Forensic Science Methods & Techniques Spanish for the Health Professions Digital Marketing Strategy Community Health Nursing/Global Health (THEORY) LGBTQ and Popular Culture American Horror Story Introduction to Politics Special Topics in Psychology, Psychology of Religion Introduction to LGBTQ Studies Global Public Health Introduction to the Study of Language Music History I and II Transforming the Global Environment Development of US II Extended Analytical Physics I and II Survey of English Literature Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Social Foundations of Education
100 60 250 200 150 20 60 75 80 150 70 40 20 25 20 40 60 40 100 70 750 100 324 40 60 100 9188
Appendix B. Survey questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9.
10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
Please choose your campus Please select your course from the list What is your major? (Humanities, Social Sciences, Science, Health Science, Business, Other) How many semesters of college have you completed? (1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10, more than 10) How much do you spend on all of your textbooks in a typical semester? ($100 or less, $101–$200, $201–$300, $301–$400, $401–$500, more than $500 but less than $1000, over $1000, I don't know) Have you ever been unable to purchase a textbook due to its cost? (Yes, No) How do you typically acquire your textbooks? (All of the time, Occasionally, Never) 1. I buy them from the University bookstore 2. I buy them online (Amazon, or other) 3. I use a library copy (including course reserves) 4. I borrow someone else's copy Your course's materials were designed to be free or very low-cost to access, compared to conventional textbooks and other course materials. When you first registered for the course, were you aware that the materials would be reduced-cost digital materials? (Yes, No) How do you typically access this course's online materials? Choose the method(s) you use most. 1. On my cell phone 2. On my laptop or tablet 3. On my desktop at home 4. On someone else's computer (for example, a. lab, library, or friend's computer) 5. I use a printed version Compared to traditional printed textbooks or readings used in your other courses, did this course's online materials make it easier or harder to do the following activities? (Much harder, Somewhat harder, The same, Somewhat easier, Much easier) 1. Access course materials 2. Read course materials 3. Take notes 4. Collaborate with other students Did you use a library e-book or other online reading provided by the library (through course reserves or library databases) for your course? (Yes, No, I don't know) If Yes, how would you rate the ease-of-use of the library e-book or other online reading? (on a scale of 1, bad, to 5, great) Is it important to you that Rutgers University continues to try to make course materials more affordable for students? (Yes, No) Please tell us anything else about your experience with the course materials in this class.
through expansion of course reserves: The case of UCLA Library's course reserves via strategic partnership with the campus independent bookstore. Technical Services Quarterly, 33(3), 268–278. Collegeboard, (n.d.) “Quick guide: College costs.” Retrieved from https://bigfuture. collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/quick-guide-college-costs. Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Park, H. (2018). The impact of open educational resources on various student success metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 262–276. Eighmy-Brown, M., McCready, K., & Riha, E. (2017). Textbook access and affordability
References Bell, S. (2007). The textbook affordability project at Temple Libraries: About the project. Retrieved from http://guides.temple.edu/c.php?g=229152&p=1520174. Boczar, J., & Pascual, L. (2017). E-books for the classroom and open access textbooks: Two ways to help students save money on textbooks. The Serials Librarian, 72(1–4), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2017.1309830. Celik, O., & Peck, R. (2016). If you expand, they will come: Textbook affordability
276
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2019) 268–277
L. Todorinova and Z.T. Wilkinson through academic library services: A department develops strategies to meet the needs of students. Journal of Access Services, 14(3), 93–113. Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III, Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015, December). A multiinstitutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159–172. Gardner, C. C., & Gardner, G. J. (2017). Fast and furious (at publishers): The motivations behind crowdsourced research sharing. College & Research Libraries, 78(2). Hendrix, D., Lyons, C., & Aronoff, N. (2016). The library as textbook provider: Administering and assessing a student-based e-textbook pilot. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 23(3), 265–294. Hewlett Foundation Open educational resources. Retrieved from https://hewlett.org/ strategy/open-educational-resources/#overview. Lyons, C., & Hendrix, D. (2014). Textbook affordability: Is there a role for the library? The Serials Librarian, 66(1–4), 262–267. Okamoto, K. (2013). Making higher education more affordable, one course reading at a time: Academic libraries as key advocates for open access textbooks and educational
resources. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267–283. Pollitz, J., Christie, A., & Middleton, C. (2009). Management of library course reserves and the textbook affordability crisis. Journal of Access Services, 6(4), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367960903149268. Senack, E. (2014). Fixing the broken textbook market. US Public Interest Research Group, Student PIRG. Smith, J. (2018). Seeking alternatives to high-cost textbooks: Six years of the Open Education Initiative at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. OER: A field guide for academic librarians (pp. 71). . Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ librarian_pubs/71. SPARC The affordable college textbook act. Retrieved from https://sparcopen.org/ourwork/affordable-college-textbook-act. Thomas, W., & Bernhardt, B. (2018). Helping keep the costs of textbooks for students down: Two approaches. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07317131.2018.1456844.
277