Introduction

While the focus of this certificate is on OER, librarians are often interested and instrumental in promoting other affordable coursework options for students. Sometimes this means working with traditional publishers to provide lower-cost access to course materials or connecting faculty with library-licensed material. It can also mean navigating the newly emerging commercial options for finding and using classroom materials that are open or affordable.

OER discussions often will invoke questions about traditional publisher material and its role in reducing student costs. It can be helpful for librarians to know about other options that are available to students and faculty so they can field these questions and provide alternatives for those who are uninterested in or unable to use OER.

'Openwashing,' 'Openwrapping,' & 'Fauxpen'

As OER gain traction on campuses and attention from the media and government, various products and platforms have emerged that could be considered "open adjacent." Some of these products provide the ancillary materials for open textbooks, some provide an easily searchable platform for faculty to find and use open materials, and some provide lower cost course materials labelled as "inclusive access" or even "open" materials. These products often involve a cost and restricted access to content. It can be challenging to navigate this territory and answer questions your faculty may have about the companies that offer these products.

Audrey Watters describes openwashing as "having an appearance of open-source and open-licensing for marketing purposes, while continuing proprietary practices."¹ In the open education community, the term is used to describe the use of the word "open" for a product or platform that does not match the definition of open adopted by the open education community (free of cost and openly licensed). Another term used to describe this phenomenon is fauxpen, a term borrowed from the open-source community. A similar tactic, called openwrapping, occurs when publishers provide open material along with proprietary content (ancillary materials, data analytics, customer support, etc.) surrounding it. These scenarios are complicated by the fact that the word "open" can be misunderstood or used to mean other things. In some cases, however, publishers may decide to use the language of the open education community to promote their own agenda. Skim through " 'Is This an OER?' Addressing the Complex Relationship Between Open and Affordable Course Materials"² for more thoughtful discussions on what is and is not OER and the differences to be considered and explained.

It's important for librarians to avoid demonizing campus bookstores and publishers when discussing OER with faculty. Faculty often have relationships with publishers and may have published textbooks themselves with traditional publishers. At the same time, librarians can help faculty avoid unintentionally agreeing to use a product that is misleading or doesn't meet their needs by being aware of these new "open adjacent" efforts, coordinating an institutional response, and being open to a variety of affordability solutions.

One tool some open education advocates have developed for evaluating how well new products or producers of OER are staying true to the perceived values of the open education community is called the CARE Framework.³ The framework (Contribute, Attribute, Release, and Empower) provides reminders of what we prioritize in making content open and can therefore be useful. Others have suggested ways the framework might be improved (see this blog post by David Wiley).

Inclusive & Equitable Access

One affordability effort that has gained traction in higher education since 2016 is a publisher/bookstore program called inclusive access (IA). It may go by another name (e.g., Digital Direct Access, AutoAccess, Instant Access), but IA programs typically allow students to receive digital access to course materials through their course management system by the first day of class. Students can opt out, but if they don't, they're automatically charged for the content, sometimes in the form of a course fee. Rules require that automatically billed books or supplies be "below competitive market rates."⁴ That phrase "means that the price charged to students is below the price generally available to the public," the Department of Education's Federal Student Aid Office says.⁵Proponents say this model reduces costs for students. Some publishers tout IA savings up to 50%-70% off the cost of new print textbooks, while critics say alternatives such as rentals or used print books may cost the same or less.

Another model to be aware of is Equitable Access, first piloted at the University of California, Davis, in 2020. UC Davis Stores told students it's "like Spotify for textbooks." This model charges students a flat rate per term for all textbooks and courseware. Other universities have launched flat-rate programs but intentionally avoided the name Equitable Access. The University of Arizona named its program Pay One Price; Cornell University chose the Cornell Academic Materials Program (CAMP). In flat-rate programs, students can opt out but it's typically on a per-term basis, whereas IA opt-outs may be on a per-course or per-item basis. When students opt out of flat-rate programs, they may get an IA option (called "cascading").

Students who opt out of automatic billing programs are left to source the materials themselves. In the case of courseware, which may be required to submit assignments or take quizzes and tests, students may not be able to pass the course without it. Students who opt out may find that materials are more expensive on a per-item basis through the publisher or campus store, without the volume discounts of automatically billed materials. Students also may need to use a credit or debit card to buy the materials, whereas IA/EA materials often can be billed to their bursar's account and financial aid can be used to pay for them.

UC Davis Stores say Equitable Access is designed to "reduce inequity among students by eliminating course material access issues, while ensuring that costs are predictable and equal for all undergraduate students."⁶ In reality, some students end up paying more than they normally would, while some students pay less (since some subjects' textbooks and courseware tend to cost more). UC Davis and the University of Arizona leverage OER and library-licensed ebooks to lower the costs of automatic billing programs. When negotiating with publishers, UC Davis touts the benefits of higher sell-through rates, less piracy, and fewer used print books in the market (since digital is the default). In surveys, UC Davis students list convenience as the No. 1 reason why they don't opt out.⁷

As automatic-billing programs expand nationwide, student advocates have voiced concerns. Critics object to models that limit consumer choice, reduce competition in the marketplace, cut off secondary course material markets (such as rentals and used print textbooks), and may offer only short-term access rather than actual ownership.⁸ The 2024 Student PIRGs report "Automatic Textbook Billing: Limited Choice, Uncertain Savings" noted that claimed savings of automatic textbook billing are difficult to quantify, and that the system may keep students locked into an uncompetitive textbook market and limit the spread of free OER.⁹

Faculty may have concerns about potential limits on their academic freedom and course material choice. While faculty participation in IA programs may be optional, campuses may require faculty participation in flat-rate programs. Certain publishers may not partner with the major platforms (e.g., VitalSource, RedShelf) that typically deliver IA/EA materials. Programs such as Cengage Unlimited incentivize use of textbooks from a single publisher.

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Education considered a rule change that would have impacted automatic textbook billing. SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and other OER advocates urged the department to require colleges to let students opt in, rather than opt out. In late 2024, the department announced that it was ending the rulemaking process, leaving the current rules that allow automatic textbook billing unchanged. But it warned that "If the Department continues to find that institutions are not complying with the current requirements ... we may propose additional protective or restrictive measures to ensure that students have access to books or supplies at below competitive market rates."¹⁰ Individual states or institutions could address the issue (the University of Central Florida has implemented an opt-in policy, although student participation tends to be lower with opt-in models than with opt-out models).

Strategies for Librarians

If automatic textbook billing programs are being discussed on your campus, here are some steps you can take:

Educate yourself about the pros and cons of these programs, so you can educate others. The Additional Resources in this section offer a wealth of information.
Be a strong advocate for students and for faculty's academic freedom. Make sure that opt-out policies, privacy and data-collection policies, pricing, access lengths, and other program aspects are as student-friendly as possible. For best practices, see "Appendix A: Guiding Questions for Course Materials Programs and Adoptions" in "Automatic Textbooks Billing: An Offer Students Can't Refuse [PDF]" (2020) by Kaitlyn Vitez.
Develop a relationship with your campus store and campus administrators so you can get a seat at the table if/when these programs are discussed. It's important to be in the room. Leverage libraries' expertise in licenses and contracts, negotiations, copyright, ebook access, and other areas. Strive to build a mutually beneficial partnership between the campus store and library.

Additional Resources

"2021 Update: SPARC Landscape Analysis and Roadmap for Action [PDF]" (2021) by Claudio Aspesi et al. is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
“If We Talked About the Internet Like We Talk About OER: The Cost Trap and Inclusive Access” (2017) by David Wiley is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
"Inclusive Access: Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why?" (2018) by Cheryl (Cuillier) Casey, in the book The Evolution of Affordable Content Efforts in the Higher Education Environment: Programs, Case Studies, and Examples, is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Student PIRGs' research on textbooks and automatic billing programs.
Textbook Billing Contract Library (n.d.) by SPARC is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
"Thinking Critically About Inclusive and Equitable Access Programs" (2024) by Nathan Smith is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Footnotes

Next

Now that you've learned about OER and commercial publishers, go on to test your understanding with a self test by selecting the Next button below.