American Scientist The Other Open Access Debate

Citation preview

Ethics

T h e O th e r O p e n -A c c e s s D e b a te Alternate educational resources need to be further developed to counteract an increasingly costly textbook burden on university students. David Harris and Mark A. Schneegurt n the first day of classes for textbooks without any idea of the cost each semester, professors to students. This scenario is supported go through the traditional by a 2008 report from the California ritual of discussing the syl­ State Auditor on the affordability of col­ textbooks, which came to the fol­ labus. They tell their studentslege about the expectations for courses, review lowing conclusion: "Nearly all of the the schedule of lectures, and talk about faculty members we interviewed were the policies for testing and attendance. unaw are of state laws encouraging Then they point out the required text­ them to participate in efforts to reduce books for the courses, which prompts audible groans. Several students ask W e m ay look back on w hether the textbook will be used heavily, w ith specific assignm ents this period and conclude from the back of the chapters. When that quality open instructors say that it is more of a refer­ ence volume for reading and studying, educational resources the groans gets louder. Students have w en t m ain s tream , realized th at the textbooks are go­ ing to add a great deal of cost to their not because it w as courses, perhaps half again the cost of tuition. Many will decide to take a free of cost, but chance by using older, less expensive for the freedom s it editions of the books, and many will choose to take courses without owning provided learn ers. textbooks at all. Clearly, this scenario does not prom ote stu d en t success, and it creates an immediate barrier be­ textbook costs and many did not un­ derstand how their decisions and pri­ tween students and faculty. This cost disconnect between profes­ orities when selecting a textbook could sors and students has some concrete or­ affect student costs." ha addition, a 2007 igins. In a 2014 Planet Money show on report to Congress from the Advisory National Public Radio, professors inter­ Committee on Student Financial As­ viewed said that textbook salespeople sistance recognized the need to restruc­ often described to them the advantages ture the publishing market and make it of a new edition, but without ever dis­ more "student-centric." Encouragingly, cussing the book's price, meaning that a 2013 U.S. Government Accountability in some cases professors were selecting Report on student access to textbook information noted that faculty inter­ viewed "said they are more aware of af­ David Harris is Editor in Chief of the nonprofit fordability issues than they used to be." OpenStax, an initiative o f Rice University, in But even when professors are aware Houston. Mark A. Schneegurt is a professor in of the burden of textbook costs for the Department of Biological Sciences at Wichita students, they can face institutional State University in Kansas, and a member of the pushback w hen looking for less ex­ Wichita chapter of Sigma Xi. Email for Harris: pensive options. For example, in late [email protected]

O

334

American Scientist, Volume 104

2015 a mathematics associate profes­ sor at California State University at Fullerton challenged a reprimand that could damage his application for full professorship; he was reprim anded after he defended his introduction of a free, alternate text for his students over the stan d ard book th at cost $180—w hich w as authored by the departm ent chair and vice-chair. The incident is still causing controversy. The debate about the cost of text­ books is part of a wider confrontation about academic publishing in general, particularly in relation to research pa­ pers that are published only behind a journal's paywall. Advocates for the open-access movement, as it is called, argue that the results of research con­ ducted using public funds should be freely accessible to everyone. Journals such as the ones produced by Public Library of Science (PLOS) were cre­ ated with this mandate in mind (how­ ever, the researcher or institution usu­ ally bears the production costs, which many try to cover with grant funding). With the National Institutes of Health leading the way, funding agencies are requiring awardees to make their re­ search publications available to the public for free. Self-assembling reposi­ tories such as ResearchGate are disrupt­ ing traditional dissemination patterns by allowing researchers to publicly post their research publications themselves. Similarly, the knowledge that stu­ dents are expected to learn in introduc­ tory science, technology, engineering, and m athematics (STEM) courses is based on publicly funded research that goes back generations. It seems wildly unfair to charge the next generation out­ rageous prices for information that is so established and well trodden. But alter-

natives can be found in open education­ al resources (OER), which includes text­ books as well as other digital reference and teaching materials. These resources are distributed with an open license, tearing down barriers to broad access. The problem of textbook cost has be­ come so pervasive that in October 2015 the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions intro­ duced called the Affordable College Textbook Act. This legislation states that "Federal investment in expanding the use of open educational resources www.americanscientist.org

could significantly lower college text­ book costs and reduce financial barri­ ers to higher education, while making efficient use of taxpayer funds." Too Broke to Fail

In 2013 Forbes.com published a feature titled "How the $1.2 trillion college debt crisis is crippling students, parents, and the economy." In it, 7 out of 10 students were reported to be borrowers, grad­ uating with an average of more than $25,000 in debt—a figure that goes up year after year. Books are a significant

part of that debt, particularly for low-in­ come students attending public univer­ sities. The website Cengagebrain.com shows that STEM textbooks frequently carry list prices of more than $250, put­ ting them out of reach for m any stu­ dents. An NBC News review of Bureau of Labor Statistics data in 2015 found that textbook prices rose at more than three times the rate of inflation from January 1977 to June 2015, a 1,041 per­ cent increase. At the same time, the life­ time cost of not completing two- and four-year degrees is also on the rise: 2016

November-December

335

Students without a college degree expe­ rience lower earnings, higher debt, and an increased likelihood that they will not break the cycle of poverty. These students are indeed too broke to fail. According to Covering the Cost, a report by the U.S. Public Interest Re­ search Group (USPIRG), as of Janu­ ary 2016, the average college student would need to work nearly 28 hours at a m inim um wage job to pay for just one $200 textbook. Books can ac­ count for 40 percent of academic costs at community colleges. In addition, a 2014 study by the nonprofit National Student Clearinghouse found that stu­ dents who are enrolled only part time in classes (often because they need to work to cover costs) drop out at a rate of 68 percent, compared to 19 percent for full-time students. This situation has created an ethical im perative to rapidly increase access to open educa­ tional resources, which are generally distributed free of charge, thus solving major financial and access hurdles. The mainstreaming of OER is coin­ ciding with advances in technologies designed to im prove access for stu­ dents with disabilities. OER are more frequently available in more formats than traditional textbooks, and across various devices, to better serve popu­ lations with disabilities. An example of this development is Bookshare.org, an online library of more than 470,000 titles in formats accessible for people w ith print disabilities, developed by the nonprofit Benetech.

but because of the freedoms that OER provided learners. These new resources are leveling the playing field and open­ ing the gates to student success. Free textbooks encourage usage, but only a material's quality fosters learn­ ing. Open education resources are typi­ cally published by nonprofit education entities that have missions much better

Alternate Production Models C urrent digital rights m anagem ent (DRM) restrictions on traditional text­ book or supplemental materials come from an era of "unidirectional" infor­ m ation flow and control. DRM lim­ its access to a discrete period of time, limits the number of pages that can be printed, limits the num ber of devices on which content can be accessed, and limits the sharing of information. For­ tunately, learners today have grown up with cloud computing, where the opportunity to network, access infor­ mation, and share knowledge is limit­ less. Access at any time, in any format, across multiple devices, along with the ability to share content, provides a level of freedom that is igniting innovation and lasting change across the market. We may look back on this period and conclude that quality OER went main­ stream, not because they are free of cost, 336

American Scientist, Volume 104

aligned with those of scientific societies than with those of traditional publish­ ers. This alignment presents opportu­ nities for collaboration to explore new ideas and provide enhanced pathways for peer review and the com m unity contributions that engender credibility. For example, in our OpenStax Microbi­ ology textbook, we worked with Sig­ ma Xi to include vetted perspectives on ethics in science. Many providers are examining meth­ ods to ensure that OER undergo the equivalent evaluations that tradition­ al textbooks receive. For instance, the

proposed Affordable College Textbook Act calls for a system of grants to be set up that could be used not only to produce new OER, but also to evaluate their quality, and to research the stu­ dent learning outcomes they produce. Indeed, this legislation addresses the need for academics who spend their time creating OER to be compensated, as does the 2008 California Auditor Report, which noted that one univer­ sity chancellor "stated that open edu­ cational resources cannot be successful unless contributions from faculty and reviewers are supported through exist­ ing sabbatical and professional growth programs or specifically compensated if state funding becomes available in the future." Going digital could reduce some overhead costs of textbook pro­ duction as well. A 2008 study by the National Association of College Stores reported that publishers had provided information that broke down textbook costs as follows: "around 15.4 cents of every dollar went toward marketing the textbooks, 11.7 cents went to the authors, and 32.2 cents went to paper, printing, and paying publishers' employees." The STEM community has an often touted reputation of being resistant to change, but faculty members are em­ bracing the freedoms of going open source. According to a July 2016 Babson College Survey, in introductory cours­ es with large enrollments, the rate of adoption of openly licensed OpenStax College textbooks is 10 percent, com­ pared with a rate of 5.3 percent in all courses. OpenStax is only one of the bourgeoning numbers of OER provid­ ers, so rather than resisting change, the academic community must be ap­ plauded for embracing and advocat­ ing change. Some universities, such as the University of Minnesota and the University System of Maryland, main­ tain libraries of open-access textbooks, to make them easier for faculty to find and implement in their courses. The way we share information with the next generation is changing. We want our students to succeed. Forcing subsequent generations to pay substan­ tial sums to access well-established, publicly generated knowledge works against our societal goals. Open-source textbooks will allow more students to go to college, be successful, and be­ come productive professionals. OER are changing the education equation for students and faculty, with society on the winning end. ♦

Copyright of American Scientist is the property of Sigma XI Science Research Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.