At first glance, this looks like a consolidation of power in a market that already lacks depth. My initial reaction – like several others – was that we were watching a monopoly form. It raised obvious concerns: fewer options, less competition and innovation, and limited paths forward for both independent campus stores and lease operators. But after taking a closer look, the story is more complicated. There’s actually more competition and model diversity than there has ever been. So, before rushing to conclusions, let’s take a look back at how we got here.

Retrospective Timeline 

October 2022 – Follett acquired Willo Labs. I remember thinking this was a pretty smart play. Willo had solid reach into the independent campus store space and Canadian markets. Operationally, Willo functioned like a digital transaction manager – similar to RedShelf and VitalSource. The twist was that a lease operator now owned a digital delivery platform instead of just partnering with one. At the time, I believed it had the potential to shift how lease operators would manage digital delivery and eBooks.

March 2023 – Nebraska Book Company closed its doors. This left a noticeable gap in the used book market, and I think it still persists today. I am not sure if we have any data confirming less availability in the used book market drove digital adoption, but it would be an interesting review.

March 2023 – VitalSource announced it had acquired Akademos. This was a big one. Akademos was one of the top-six lease operators, in my view. My concern at the time was whether competitors using VitalSource would be at a disadvantage. I was worried that the Akademos side of the business might get access to platform data and use it to gain pricing or RFP advantages. Two years later, that never seemed to happen. I’ve had conversations across the lease operator space and haven’t heard any real complaints. Still, it was a fair concern to raise at the time.

October 2023 – BibliU announced it had acquired Texas Book Company (TBC). This caught my attention. BibliU seemed like a small UK player trying to make inroads in the U.S. but without the logistics to compete. Acquiring TBC gave them physical infrastructure and the ability to run hybrid and brick-and-mortar operations. It moved them from being a RedShelf/VitalSource competitor to a real lease operator. Based on how they’ve held up over the last year and a half, it looks like they’re not just hanging on – they’re building something.

October 2024 – Follett announced they were shuttering Willo Labs for independent campus stores. In a letter to those campuses, they made it clear that continuing to support indie store integrations wasn’t financially viable. The shift made sense: Follett didn’t acquire Willo to keep running third-party integrations – they acquired it to build leverage for their own managed stores. Still, the timing caught many campuses off guard and forced a lot of them to regroup quickly.

March 2025 – Follett dropped another big one: they were leaving RedShelf and shifting their digital and eBook operations to UK-based Kortext. This likely meant that close to 1,000 campuses would transition away from RedShelf in only a few short months. It was a significant loss, and at the time, it felt like it might be a death blow. But I didn’t count RedShelf out. Their work on Cascading Access was forward-thinking – giving students the ability to move between Equitable Access and Inclusive Access or opt out entirely. It was one of the only models out there that gave students some middle ground instead of the usual all-or-nothing. This model will take deep root over the next 2-3 years as more providers bring their cascading models to market – as VitalSource did with their Flexible Access model in Fall 2024.

April 2025 – VitalSource and RedShelf both announced on LinkedIn that VitalSource had acquired RedShelf. I did not see this coming.

Commentary

Given all the jockeying between digital transactions manager and lease operator acquisitions, I expected that if RedShelf was to be acquired, it would be by a bookstore lease operator or possibly a private equity firm looking to stake a claim. I did not expect VitalSource to be the one making the move – but it makes sense.

The first thing to consider is the likely size of the deal. It might not be as big as it seems. After Follett pulled its accounts, RedShelf likely lost more than half its store count – maybe as much as 65-70%. With a drop that steep, their valuation likely followed, making the acquisition more attractive for VitalSource and more of a necessity for RedShelf

Second, while VitalSource is a global player with significant reach, broad scale doesn’t automatically translate to keeping pace with innovation. Staying competitive in this market requires constant tech upgrades and platform improvements. By acquiring RedShelf, VitalSource picks up some useful tools and personnel that could strengthen their offerings and help them respond faster to the evolving demands of students, campuses, and stores.

So yes, the market lost a major player – but it didn’t become empty. There are new (and existing) companies carving out space where VitalSource hasn’t or can’t. The main ones I am watching are Bibliu, Kortext, Perlego, and the publishers themselves. Don’t underestimate what the publishers are doing on their own, especially with the announcements of artificial intelligence integrations made by Cengage, McGraw Hill and Pearson.

Market Competition

I haven’t done a full deep dive into each of these companies – hopefully in a Part 2 (And if you work at one of them, we should chat). But here’s a snapshot of what they are doing that likely pressured VitalSource into this acquisition – and why competition in the market is more active than it looks on the surface.

Bibliu

At a fundamental level, Bibliu came to the US market as a competitor to RedShelf and VitalSource.  The acquisition of Texas Book Company expanded their role, but at their core, they still deliver digital materials and now have the infrastructure to support physical and hybrid models too.

There may be questions about the strength of their eReader or faculty adoption tool compared to other competitors, but where they’re clearly seeking to differentiate themselves is with their reporting and analytics. Bibliu is able to report data to faculty at a program, course, and book level that includes things like in-book actions, reading time, and chapter/feature usage. This level of reporting and analytics could be a major differentiator for campuses that care about tracking usage and engagement.

What originally made Bibliu feel like a company ready to disrupt the course materials space is still there.  To capture the independent market, they need to leverage their digital and physical capabilities in the same way VitalSource/Akademos has leveraged theirs. If they’re not actively exploring that, I think it is a missed opportunity for growth and revenue.

Perlego

As a UK-based course materials provider, Perlego is positioning itself in the U.S. as a kind of “Spotify for Textbooks” – offering a subscription-based, buffet-style model. One price gets you access to all of the content on their platform. They are doing an impressive job in Europe and they could do the same in the U.S., especially as they continue to advance the functionality of their eReader and text-to-speech capabilities.

Their standout feature is Smart Search, powered by AI. As artificial intelligence continues to mature and integrate into more learning technologies, the company that uses it most effective could have an edge. While Perlego doesn’t currently offer courseware or access to the Big Three (Cengage, McGraw Hill, Pearson) they’re still worth paying attention to – especially for independent campus stores looking for digital-first options and lease operators looking to expand their digital catalogue.

Kortext

I don’t have deep insights into Kortext yet, other than what’s publicly available. My guess is that their deal with Follett includes some form of exclusivity – at least for now. Once the Follett rollout is complete, Kortext could have a real opening in the independent store market, if their tools are advanced and supportive as they seem.

What I’m most interested in is their AI strategy. Perlego’s starting to push into that space – what is Kortext doing behind the scenes that could benefit the broader course materials ecosystem? Additionally, their AI study tools give off vibes of Barnes & Noble’s Bartleby product (since sold off) and Chegg Study. Will they continue to charge students in the Follett partnership for these products or will it be included as part of their agreement? That is something worth watching as Follett and Kortext roll out this fall.

Publishers

Long before the introduction of digital transactions managers, Publishers were doing their own campus integrations and digital content management. That hasn’t stopped. I’ve worked with several institutions that integrate directly with publishers and skip RedShelf or VitalSource entirely. Major publishers still support campus stores and can partner with lease operators directly. They never left; they’ve just been adapting to the environment.

Potential Concerns

While I see plenty of reasons to believe the market is still competitive, this acquisition doesn’t come without potential concerns. Anytime two major players merge – especially in a market with limited U.S.-based alternatives – it creates ripple effects. The RedShelf brand may live on in name or tech, but operationally, this is now a one-platform scenario for many institutions. That shift raises questions about pricing, choice, and the direction of future innovation. And while global players are stepping up/in, the immediate impact of this acquisition will be felt by most U.S. campuses navigating tight budgets, short timelines, and already-limited bandwidth to reevaluate vendor alternatives.

Pricing Pressure

The cost of this acquisition is unknown. However, RedShelf’s shrinking footprint and the timing suggest VitalSource got it at a discount. Still, even a “good deal” requires cash or capital, and those costs need to be recovered somehow. One potential concern is whether institutions and students will see increases in pricing as a result – outside of inflation. Will Inclusive or Equitable Access programs negotiated through VitalSource become more expensive? Even modest increases, spread across hundreds or even thousands of institutions, could add up quickly. This bears watching to see how it plays out, if at all.

US-Based Competition Just Got Thinner

Yes, there’s still competition – but it’s increasingly coming from outside the U.S. The competitors I mentioned previously are all UK-based. The only notable U.S.-based competition in the market just got absorbed. For independent stores that value domestic services, support, and data compliance infrastructure, that could be a concern. With fewer U.S.-based providers, there may be less incentive for VitalSource to prioritize localized service, price negotiations, or platform improvements.

Institutional Leverage Shrinks

Independent stores and lease operators have long used the presence of RedShelf and VitalSource to play one against the other when negotiating platform fees or service terms. That leverage is gone. While other competitors may be viable alternatives, they are not yet embedded in the U.S. market at scale. That might leave many institutions without a credible back up plan.

Technology Consolidation Risks

One of RedShelf’s strengths was its innovation. Now that RedShelf is under the VitalSource umbrella, the concern is whether those innovations will continue, get absorbed and rebranded, or worse, get deprioritized in favor of VitalSource’s roadmap. Consolidation often comes with efficiency, but it can also lead to stagnation if there’s no internal pressure to keep iterating.

Long-Term Data Implications

While there’s no evidence that VitalSource leveraged competitor or partner data post-Akademos, the growing stack of platform services under one company raises long-term concerns. With so many campuses and lease operators running through one-system, what guardrails are in place to ensure data is siloed, secured, and not used to shape pricing strategies or RFP responses?

All these concerns are real, and institutions should pay attention. But they run counter to what I think this acquisition is really about. This wasn’t just about eliminating a competitor – it was about staying ahead of the competition. VitalSource didn’t just acquire RedShelf because the market is collapsing. They did it because the market is evolving, and RedShelf had the tech, tools, and people that could help them move faster. Innovation is still happening, and this acquisition, while a consolidation, is also a bet on what’s next for the market.

Moving Forward

The challenge for VitalSource and its competitors is that the course materials distribution point has changed. A decade or more ago, it was the point-of-sale system. Now, it’s the digital transaction platform. These companies are expected to be enterprise-level distributors, manage and enhance content, address data privacy, deliver robust analytics, and now integrate artificial intelligence.

No single company can do all of that well. Not at scale. What’s more likely is that each provider will bring something different to the table and campuses will pick the one that aligns best with their priorities.

So, while Monday’s announcement may feel like contraction, I don’t think it’s the monopoly I initially worried it was. There’s still competition out there – maybe more than ever. What makes this moment feel uncertain is the effort involved in figuring out what’s next and who is left. But if you are an independent store or lease operator asking, “Where do we go from here?” – I hope this article gives you a place to start.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

The growth of Inclusive and Equitable Access has played an important role in driving down course materials costs and increasing access to course materials. While I believe they are the leading intervention models that can make the most impact for the greatest number of students across an entire institution, they are not the only options when it comes to course materials interventions. Open educational resources and text rental programs help contribute to the overall decrease in cost of and increased access to course materials. However, one of the course materials debates I hear the most often is print vs. digital course materials. Is one more suitable to help students learn? Are there benefits to digital course materials that print can’t offer? Here are some thoughts:

Print Course Materials

The adoption and use of print course materials has been around as long as college itself. What we have learned over the last decade or so is that print course materials, in part, has led to rising course materials costs, students not purchasing their course materials, deferring classes, or abandoning their major of choice. My guy Brad Piazza said something interesting while we were preparing for a recent conference presentation. He said that print books are a one-way push of information. With print course materials, information is only transferred one way – from the printed words on the page to the reader’s eyes. When a student reads a page in their textbook, the information is pushed from the book to the student. There is no interaction, there is no pushback. If the student doesn’t grasp the concept, they may be able to flip to a glossary in the back of the book, but there isn’t much else to aid in their learning.

Digital

Rather than talk about what digital course materials were before, I want to talk about what digital course materials are today. Almost all digital course materials content delivery providers have their own e-reader or platform to engage with the digital content. Digital course materials today are dynamic, engaging, interactive, and easily navigated. Most platforms offer similar features to help students learn and engage with the material. These features include highlighting with multiple colors, note taking, table of contents, enhanced search features, flash card creation, student-to-student collaboration, and read aloud functionality.

Digital Features

One of the biggest concerns with a shift towards digital content is access to an internet connected device for students. Most, if not all, digital platforms offer offline capabilities. This allows students to download their books and access them when they are disconnected from the internet. One of my favorite features of digital course materials in 2023 is the ability for student-to-student collaboration. This functionality works very similar to working in groups in the classroom and can be activated by faculty or students themselves. This feature allows students to work together in the textbook to share things they have highlighted or flash cards they have created on certain topics. I believe this supports the research on peer-to-peer learning. Faculty can also create small groups for collaboration. This feature would seem practical in online or hybrid courses where in-person collaboration is not possible. I do not take a position on one product or service over the other, but there are several content delivery providers that would love the opportunity to give you a demo of their e-reader or platform. I would be happy to connect you if you are not sure where to start.

The Last Physical Frontier

Would you believe me if I told you that course materials are one of the last higher education services to go digital on campus? Students are required to have access to a device and the internet to sign up for courses, add/drop courses, turn in assignments, access grades, and log into/access courses and syllabi. Almost all campus services have migrated to digital – some of them a long time ago. If you walk onto a modern college campus, it is unlikely you will find physical course sign-up or add/drop forms or get handed a syllabus when you walk into class. Why should our students expect to access all their college services digitally, but not their course materials? It’s time digital course materials join the rest of the campus services our students interact with daily.

It’s Here

The digital course materials revolution we have been promised for the last 10 years has finally arrived.  If you are looking for more reasons to adopt a digital-first course materials strategy, please check out this blog from Jason Lorgan – a pioneer in course materials. Additionally, digital course materials, as part of an Inclusive Access program, have been shown to increase student outcomes. As you ponder the print vs. digital argument, I implore you to consider how digital can impact the largest number of students. If there are real challenges for a small number of students who cannot access digital content, all course materials stakeholders are committed to ensuring those students have access to what they need to be successful. It’s time. It’s here.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

The higher education course materials landscape has largely remained unchanged over the last several decades. However, there has been a seismic shift in the industry over the last five years. The pervasive adoption of Inclusive and Equitable Access programs has changed course materials acquisition and delivery forever. More recently though, structural changes at and to industry titans may prove just as impactful as the revolutionary course materials models themselves. Among other things, the recent VitalSource acquisition of Akademos will alter the landscape for vendor managed and independently managed college campus stores for quite some time.

Industry Changes

Over the last six months, the course materials industry has seen Follett Higher Education acquire Willo Labs and the shuttering of a century old industry staple in Nebraska Book Company. While these events are significant in their own right, the news out of VitalSource this past week could shake up the whole industry. Akademos and VitalSource have suggested patience as questions mount about the details and logistics of the acquisition. However, as someone who investigates course materials models, I thought it might be interesting to do some semi-responsible speculating on how this move may/might/can/will shake up the course materials market.

Why?

I think the first question is why? Why did this acquisition happen? VitalSource is seemingly the leading digital course materials provider in the industry. Akademos has seemingly found their stride in winning new and bigger accounts with their Equitable Access focused model. Both have strong, sophisticated technological pieces that make them leaders in their own areas. Why not continue forging their own paths to individual success? I think the answer to that question is knowledge.

Industry Knowledge

I think the answer to the question of why is industry or domain knowledge. Each company has knowledge of specific aspects of the course materials landscape. The VitalSource technology products have spread far and wide in higher education. They have vast knowledge and experience delivering digital content through their platform. Akademos has a vast knowledge of delivering physical content through decades of building vendor relationships and servicing all aspects of the campus store. Not only does Akademos have the physical delivery pipeline, but they also bring the experience of building relationships with campus faculty and administrators. This isn’t to say VitalSource doesn’t have the capacity and capability to do that, but Akademos has a different experience flexing that muscle. I also don’t think it was an industry secret that, with the launch of their VerbaOne product, VitalSource might have been looking to for ways to build out physical delivery into their offerings. So, this acquisition of Akademos seems to have accelerated that process or intention.

What’s Next?

So, now that they have merged industry technology with industry knowledge, what’s next? What can we expect to see over the next six months to two years? Are the big two now the big three? Does this put VitalSource in a new category of service provider? How does this change the competitive course materials management landscape? I think the impact we are going to see is more about a re-imagined independent campus store than it is about changing the game in the leased campus store space.

Offloading Course Materials

VitalSource has communicated their commitment to the independent campus bookstore segment and they say that this will only enhance independently managed stores. I am not exactly sure that is what is going to happen. I think what the VitalSource acquisition of Akademos does is give the independent campus store the ability to more easily and seamlessly offload or outsource one of the most challenging parts of their operation: Course Materials. With the physical delivery capabilities of Akademos under their umbrella, VitalSource can now manage all aspects of a campus store’s course materials, not just the digital component.

Re-Imagined Self-Op

I grew up in the vendor managed or leased campus bookstore space, so I will not pretend to completely understand how independent campus bookstores operate or think. However, I know course materials. I know the painstaking process of collecting and entering adoptions, ordering, receiving, stocking, and reordering, among other things course materials related. Course materials management is by far the hardest aspect of the campus store. *If you are a course materials manager reading this, I want you to stand up and pat yourself on the back for the work you do each and every day to support your students and your store.* Outsourcing course materials would change how independent stores operate and what they focus on in their day-to-day operations. Essentially, outsourcing course materials turns the independent campus store into a de facto spirit shop. We would need to re-imagine what the independent campus store looked, felt, and acted like.

I hate to use an ambiguous phrase like ‘a lot’, but I think ‘a lot’ of campus stores might welcome this relief. If the primary goal is to serve students and the campus community, offloading course materials to someone who may be able to deliver course materials more efficiently and effectively might not be a bad thing. Current independently managed campus stores who use VitalSource will need to continue monitoring new developments to determine the best course of action for their stores and their campus.

Take Back

I think the other major impact to course materials management and the campus store is that this acquisition may allow campuses to take back their bookstore operations from lease operators. From my perspective, a lease operator is a company who manages all aspects of the campus bookstore, under their name, from course materials to general merchandise to staffing to proprietary operational software. If a campus is not happy with their lease vendor, for whatever reason, but they want to continue serving their faculty and students with all course materials content types, the acquisition gives them that ability. A campus can retake local control over general merchandise while still providing faculty, staff, and the campus community with the course materials experience they expect. However, if I had to guess which is more likely, I think it is more likely we see more independent stores offloading their course materials management than taking back their campus bookstore from a lease operator.

Secondarily, now that VitalSource has acquired Akademos, if a lease operator decides to drop a campus, they have a fallback option. There is a push from lease operators for campuses to move to an Equitable Access course materials intervention model. If a campus is resistant to this shift, it is likely the campus and lease operator may decide to part ways. If that happens, VitalSource may be in a unique position to step in and support that campus – at least with their course materials management.

Current Vendor Partners

My first initial reaction to this news was that current lease operators (Akademos competitors) who use VitalSource will need to immediately drop them and find another digital content provider. I have softened on this a little over the last few days, but I still think it could be problematic from a competitive standpoint. If you are a competitor of Akademos and you are using VitalSource, what kind of information about your operations or technology do they have access to? Before the acquisition, that type of information might not have been as relevant to VitalSource, but now having that information might put you at a competitive disadvantage or potentially expose your confidential intellectual property. Am I being a little hyperbolic? Sure. But, the point remains the same, by adding a competitor to their capabilities, it’s reasonable to reassess the relationship with VitalSource to determine how it will impact your competitiveness in the marketplace.

Wrap Up

There truly does need to be a sense of patience as the details of this acquisition emerge. Today, there are more questions than answers. The VitalSource acquisition of Akademos has the potential to significantly change higher education course materials acquisition and delivery. There are implications for a variety of stakeholders and it will be important that everyone does their due diligence moving forward. Personally, I think this is a positive development because the combined technology and knowledge will benefit students and campuses. I want to see students succeed and getting course materials in their hands and on their devices is truly impactful to their success. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

The last year and a half have flown by. It has been personally and professionally rewarding to have the opportunity to spend my time investigating the course materials revolution. It is not lost on me the unique position I am in and where it has led me. I have had the opportunity to share my work with audiences around the country. However, there are many who have still not seen the research. This is obviously very forward and self-promoting of me, but I wanted to share some key events that I will be speaking/presenting at over the next few months. I will drop links to the events so that if you have not registered and would like to, you can.

Upcoming Events and Appearances

Where: ICBA 2023 Conference & PRIMEtime

When: Wednesday, February 8^th at 8:30am PST

What: Q&A session with Greg Fenton, CEO and Co-Founder of RedShelf, on the relationship between improved academic outcomes with revolutionary course materials interventions and student retention in higher education.

Register: Here

Where: CAMEX100 by NACS

When: Thursday, March 9^th at 3:30pm CST

What: In a solo session, I will be presenting my research with some new perspectives on the impact improved student outcomes with Inclusive and Equitable Access have on student retention, persistence, and campus financials.

Register: Here

Where: Higher Learning Commission 2023 Annual Conference

When: Sunday, March 26^th at 2:15pm CST

What: Brad Piazza, VP of Academic Affairs at Waukesha County Technical College and I will be delivering our Data Informed Decisions for a More Student Centric Campus presentation. This includes WCTC’s journey from a traditional 16-week academic schedule to a year-round 8-week academic schedule as well as our co-authored research on the impact of Inclusive Access on success rates at WCTC.

Register: Here

Wrap Up

Having the opportunity to share my work and talk with course materials stakeholders from a variety of different organizations and institutions is a privilege I do not take for granted. Engaging with people across higher education whose aim is to help students be more successful in their academic pursuits is inspiring. If you are attending any of these events and we have not met, I look forward to meeting you in person. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

I recently presented at the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) annual conference in New York City with my guy Brad Piazza. Brad is the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Waukesha County Technical College and a co-author on our recently accepted manuscript. I think our presentation went very well as there appeared to be standing room only. Brad dazzled with his humor and passion for student success and course materials. I had a few takeaways from our session.

Education

My biggest takeaway from our presentation and its response was the work still necessary to educate higher education stakeholders on current course materials interventions like Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and Open Educational Resources. Despite the growth in adoption of these course materials interventions models, more work is needed to help administrators understand the details. My work is focused on understanding how these interventions impact student outcomes like success rate (Grade C or better) and course completion rate (Grade D or better). I don’t provide guidance on use of publisher or bookstore lease operator, but my experience in the bookstore industry allows me to provide administrators with a unique perspective. One of the biggest challenges ahead is not trying to convince higher education that anyone intervention is above the rest, but to educate them on how the intervention models can help their students succeed in the classroom.

Access or Content

What is the more important element of Inclusive and Equitable Access – access or content type? This was a great question asked during our session. As with most things in life, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Therefore, I think access is the more important of the two choices. Access means the reduction or elimination of all front-end barriers for students. Access means students not choosing between course materials and other basic needs like food or rent. I spent 13 years on the frontlines of course materials acquisitions. I understand the decisions students must make semester after semester. While there are segments of the higher education population that has no problem finding and acquiring their course materials, there are large segments of higher education’s underrepresented student population that are put in impossible situations.  However, that doesn’t mean content type is not as equally important.

Content Type

As Jason Lorgan wrote for my blog, a digital-first strategy has many benefits beyond just cost savings. The type of content used in the course materials revolution is still a very important consideration. Courseware and interactive digital textbooks provide students with a more intimate learning experience. The difference between courseware/digital textbooks and flat digital textbooks and print is how students are nudged into exploring topics further or the built-in support to help faculty support students who need it, among other things. So, the type of content can make a difference for all students.

Wrap Up

As I reflect on our ACCT presentation, those with a stake in course materials need to make more of a concerted effort to educate faculty and administrators. Less selling more educating. I look forward to seeing everyone at the Textbook Affordability Conference in Chicago November 9^th through the 11^th and at NACAS C3X in Las Vegas November 14^th through the 16^th. I will be providing course materials intervention education at both conferences, so please feel free to come say hello. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

There were some recent developments in course materials that I wanted to share some thoughts on. The first was the National Association of College Stores (NACS) released a new Student Watch Report and the second was Student Monitor announcing they were adding questions to their semi-annual trends report about Inclusive Access.

Student Watch News

NACS recently released their Student Watch™: Attitudes and Behaviors toward Course Materials: 2022 Report. The report included responses from 39 campuses and over 11,800 students. Interestingly, the report indicated that the average student spending for course materials in 2021-2022 was at its lowest point since NACS began tracking the data in 1998. I wanted to highlight some responses from the report that pertain to Inclusive Access:

• The report indicated that 39% of respondents received their course materials through Inclusive Access(IA), up from 15% in 2018-2019.
• Over 50% of responses indicated that Inclusive Access would be better than the traditional course materials acquisitions process.
• About 54% of those who obtained their course materials through Inclusive Access were at least somewhat satisfied with the program and another 30% were neither satisfied no dissatisfied.
• Of students who were satisfied with the Inclusive Access program, over 70% said they were satisfied with the program because they had the materials on the first day of class, didn’t have to shop around for course materials, and/or they knew they would have all of the materials and the correct editions.
• Over 40% of students who indicated they were satisfied with the program said they were satisfied because their materials cost less, and they had the ability to pay later or through tuition.
• Over 30% of respondents reported accessing free downloadable materials.

Student Monitor News

Student Monitor produces a national, syndicated market research study focused on trends at four-year institutions. In their reports they have found that student attitudes towards digital textbooks have shifted positively. As such, they want to explore how students feel about Inclusive Access. In their article they said, “IA is here to stay, and we are excited to introduce IA research as a new component in our Fall 2022 report…”. This is an interesting development to learn more about how Inclusive Access is perceived at four-year institutions. My research on Inclusive and Equitable Access has been more two-year focused, so I am interested to see Student Monitor’s Fall 2022 report.

Wrap Up

While Inclusive Access is just one program to reduce the cost of and increase access to course materials, it is gaining traction. I am interested to see how the results from Student Monitor match up to the responses NACS received from their report. Regardless of your personal opinion of programs like IA, the more we can learn about their effectiveness and student perceptions, the more we will be able to adjust them to meet the needs of students. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM