For decades, institutions have treated course materials as a peripheral component of the academic experience, necessary but operationally distinct from the core functions of teaching and learning. This approach has continued despite mounting evidence that access to materials is one of the earliest and most consequential variables influencing student success.

At most institutions, the process for course materials acquisition follows a consistent pattern. Faculty or departments select required materials and submit those selections to the campus bookstore. The bookstore sources the materials through publishers, wholesalers, or distributors. Students are then responsible for locating and purchasing those materials, either through the campus store or external marketplaces.

This process places the responsibility for access on the student, not the institution.

Students are expected to navigate a fragmented marketplace defined by varying price points, formats, and availability timelines. Within this structure, institutions function as facilitators of access rather than designers of it.

This approach creates predictable outcomes.

Course Materials as Institutional Infrastructure

In other areas of higher education, institutions have long recognized the importance of infrastructure. Learning management systems, student information systems, and registration and billing systems are embedded, institutionally managed systems that shape the student experience at scale.

Course materials operate differently. They remain structurally external to the institution.

When access to required materials is delayed, inconsistent, or absent, the consequences are academic. Students begin courses without the tools required to engage with readings, assignments, and instruction. This introduces variability at the point where consistency is most critical.

This is not a purchasing problem. It is a design problem.

The Role of Availability, Timing, and Presentation

Research across behavioral economics and educational outcomes suggests that student behavior is highly sensitive to initial conditions. Early access to materials influences engagement patterns, assignment completion, and persistence within a course.

Three variables are particularly consequential:

• Availability: Whether materials are accessible at or before the start of the course
• Timing: The alignment between access and instructional sequencing
• Presentation: The degree to which access is seamless or requires additional action

When these variables are aligned, access becomes integrated into the academic experience. Students do not need to take additional steps to obtain required materials.

When they are not aligned, friction is introduced. Students delay access, attempt to work without materials, or forgo access entirely. Even minor friction accumulates and affects engagement and performance.

This is observable across adoption patterns, inventory decisions, and student purchasing behavior.

Institutional Implications

Reframing course materials as infrastructure carries significant implications for institutional strategy.

First, responsibility shifts. Access is not solely a student obligation. It becomes an institutional outcome that can be designed and managed.

Second, success metrics change. Price reduction alone is not sufficient. Institutions must evaluate whether materials are consistently available, aligned with instruction, and integrated into existing systems.

Third, decisions must be made at the system level. Course materials cannot be managed solely within procurement or retail functions. They intersect with academic affairs, technology, and finance and must be addressed accordingly.

Beyond Affordability

Affordability remains a critical concern, but it cannot serve as the primary organizing principle. A low-cost system that delivers materials late or inconsistently reduces financial burden while introducing academic risk.

At the same time, systems designed for immediate and consistent access can improve engagement and outcomes even when cost structures differ from traditional models.

The question is not whether affordability matters. It is how affordability is defined within a system that is expected to support academic success.

Wrap Up

Course materials occupy a unique position within higher education. They are both academic inputs and economic goods. Treating them primarily as transactions has produced systems that are efficient at the transaction level but inconsistent in access and outcomes.

If institutions aim to improve student success at scale, course materials must be treated as infrastructure. They must be designed, managed, and evaluated with the same level of intention as other institutional systems.

This shift does not resolve every challenge. It does establish a more accurate foundation for addressing them.

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

-MM

This article originally appeared in The Course Materials Brief, a monthly newsletter on course materials systems in higher education. Subscribe on LinkedIn.

A question I have been asked many times over the last few years is whether I have a list, or know if one exists, of all the institutions who have adopted course materials intervention models like Inclusive and Equitable Access. In my conversations with various stakeholders I’ve seen bits and pieces of lists. Many of them are incomplete or lack key details about the institutions. I have always wondered why one didn’t exist. Surely, there had to be someone who compiled a detailed list.

Let’s Build It

As many of you know, I transitioned out of working in and around course materials in a direct, day-to-day capacity almost a year ago. So, I haven’t had the time or resources to dedicate to making a list. However, after an intense conversation with some campus leaders a few months ago, I decided I needed this list, even if just for myself. So, I set out to do it. It took several months of nights and weekends, but here we are. I have a…partial list. I’ve scoped the top 1,000 institutions by headcount according to available IPEDS data to determine if they are using a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access.

Approach and Process

Creating a list of just names of institutions using  course materials intervention models wasn’t going to cut it.  I needed to understand which schools were using these models, where they were located, their size, whether or not they were a Minority Serving Institution, and some other data points about them I wasn’t sure I wanted or will even use. The usefulness of this list was going to be determined by how detailed I could make it.

I started with IPEDS. My institutional selection condition was Title IV (federal financial aid) participation status. If the institution wasn’t participating in or eligible for Title IV, they didn’t make the list. After I had my list of 5,918 institutions, I had to select my variables. Beyond the IPEDS ID and institutional name, I have 23 other potential IPEDS variables by which to segment. To round out the top 1,000 list with information not available in IPEDS, I used a combination of personal knowledge and comprehensive desk research. There are some limitations to this approach which I will address later.

By the Numbers

There are over 5,900 institutions of higher education who are participating in or eligible for Title IV federal financial aid funding, according to IPEDS. These range from schools with 10 students to over 200,000 students. Focusing on the Top 1,000 institutions (16.90% of the total available institutions), I found there are 524 (52.40%) institutions using some variation of a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access. Of those 524 institutions, 411 (78.44%) are using Inclusive Access and 113 (21.56%) are using Equitable Access.

As we review some of the data, remember this data is only from the Top 1,000 institutions by headcount per IPEDS. Chat 1 highlights inclusive access programs by state. California leads the way with 45 institutions using some sort of course by course access model and Texas is second with 30.

Chart 2 examines the number of institutions in the top 1,000 using a campus-wide model. Again, California leads the way with 12, but Texas with 11 and Florida with 9 are close behind.

Something I, and many others, have wondered over the last few years is whether or not there is a particular type of institution that is more likely to adopted these course materials intervention models. I think the next few charts give us a pretty good picture from the Top 1,000. Admittedly, it is very possible these graphs change as we expand the list from 1,000 to 2,000 and beyond. Chart 3 examines access program types by institutional size. For this chart, institutional size can be read as FTE or Full-Time Equivalent, which is a different metric than the headcount metric with which I started. I like this metric because it buckets institutions into groups more easily than using the widely varying headcount metric.

Chart 4 looks at access program types by sector. There are four sector types in this Top 1,000 segment: Private For-Profit (4Y+), Private Not-For-Profit (4Y+), Public (2Y), and Public (4Y+). In this sample, we can see that Public (4Y+) institutions have more widely adopted Inclusive and Equitable Access. This aligns with anecdotal evidence and things I have heard over the last few years . It is cool to see it validated in the Top 1,000 list.

Chart 5 is just for fun. Since I had the variable, and we had already looked at program types by state, I figured why not? IPEDS has a region variable where they bucket institutions based on their geographic region. The Southeast region leads the list with 139 access programs followed by Far West (79) and Great Lakes (74).

Limitations

There are a few important limitations to this work that we need to address:

• The list of institutions and variable data are from IPEDS, which means I have no control over the variable data or its accuracy. Institutions self-report data to IPEDS.
• I could have made an error in contributing or not contributing an IA/EA program to an institution from my desk research.
• Multi-campus institutions only count once – sometimes. There are at least two schools in the Top 1,000 that I personally know have multiple campuses and are using IA or EA. IPEDS data counts those institutions as one single institution, therefore they are only counted once in this research. They were most likely counted as individual campuses in previous attempts I have made to understand the scale and scope of IA/EA. I am sure this limitation will be an area of contention once the list is complete.
• This is not, and was never intended to be, scientific research,

Wrap Up

This is just the start. Over the next few weeks and months, I will continue to scope the IA/EA market in hopes of presenting  a more accurate and detailed picture of what the adoption of Inclusive and Equitable Access looks like across higher education. We hope that you found this first part of our work helpful or insightful.

If your campus is looking for support adopting a course materials intervention model like Inclusive or Equitable Access or evaluating your current program, we have limited space for 2025 to add new clients to our growing consulting portfolio. Contact us today to learn how we can help you drive unparalleled access to course materials and increased student success for your campus.

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

-MM

If you have any familiarity with higher education, you have some idea of luminary theorists Vincent Tinto and Alexander Astin. Tinto’s groundbreaking research on student retention has significantly shaped our understanding of why students drop out of higher education. Among other factors, Tinto identifies academic difficulty and a disconnection from the educational community, also identified as social integration, as reasons students drop out. Additionally, Astin’s seminal Input-Environment-Output model provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of student development and academic success. His model suggests ‘Input’ factors, such as student demographics and prior educational experiences, interact with the ‘Environment,’ which includes educational settings and resources, to produce ‘Output,’ or educational outcomes and student success. Higher education has historically grappled with these issues, and it still does today. I think that Equitable Access course materials intervention models have the potential to mitigate the issues of which Astin and Tinto have made us aware. I thought it would be interesting for us to explore the connections between Tinto’s drop out factors, Astin’s I-E-O model, and Equitable Access.

Equitable Access

Let’s start with how I understand Equitable Access course materials intervention models. Equitable Access is a revolutionary course materials intervention model that standardizes the cost of course materials through a flat fee structure, ensuring that every student in every course has immediate access to required materials from the first day of class. By doing so, it aims to level the academic playing field and create a more inclusive educational environment.

Tinto’s Drop-Out Factors

Vincent Tinto’s work has highlighted two factors that contribute to student drop-out:

• Academic Difficulty: Students who struggle academically, sometimes due to a lack of access to required course materials, are at a higher risk of dropping out.
• Disconnection: A sense of disconnection or lack of engagement with the academic community can also lead to retention and persistence issues.

Impacting Academic Difficulty Through Equitable Access

A significant barrier to academic success is the cost of and access to required textbooks and course materials. Students who cannot or do not acquire their required materials are at a distinct disadvantage, which can lead to poor academic performance and, ultimately, attrition.

How Equitable Access Helps Academic Difficulty

By ensuring that all students have immediate access to their required course materials, Equitable Access eliminates or reduces the access and affordability barriers. Institutions that have implemented this model show promising results. For instance, my research on participants vs. non-participants in an Equitable Access model shows a +15.58% difference in course completion rate for participants, and +1% increase in course completion rate in a pre/post study. Additionally, surveys from the University of California – Davis and San Diego State University found more students have their required course materials with Equitable Access than before, more students than not would recommend the Equitable Access program to other students, and a majority of students who opted out of the program did not secure the required materials for two or more classes.

Mitigating Disconnection Through Equitable Access

Tinto identifies a sense of disconnection or lack of social integration as another significant factor contributing to student drop-out. Students who do not feel integrated into the academic community are more likely to leave.

How Equitable Access Helps Mitigate Disconnection

Without having the required course materials, students cannot engage in the classroom, with their peers, or with the course content. They are not able to participate in class, in group assignments, or reference the materials; not to mention the stigma of not being able to afford or acquire the required materials. By creating universal access to the required course materials, students have the required materials for all their courses. This means they can be fully engaged with the necessary resources and state of mind to focus on their studies – not on their lack of resources. Ensuring all students have unimpeded access to their materials fosters a sense of community among students and the classroom.

Synergy with Tinto’s Model

The implications of Equitable Access align well with the challenges identified in Tinto’s research. By ensuring equal access to academic resources and fostering a sense of community, Equitable Access can serve as one approach to combat both academic difficulty and disconnection.

Astin’s Input-Environment-Output Model

Alexander Astin’s Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) model offers a comprehensive framework that outlines the factors influencing student success in higher education. The ‘Input’ factors incorporate variables like student demographics, academic background, and prior educational experiences. Students carry these factors with them when they enter higher education. These ‘Input’ factors interact with the ‘Environment,’ which is the educational setting, resources, and experiences provided by the institution. This interaction ultimately leads to ‘Output,’ which manifests as a variety of different educational outcomes such as academic achievement, retention, and overall student success. Broadly, Equitable Access can enrich the educational ‘Environment,’ making it more conducive to learning and academic success.

Equitable Access and Astin’s I-E-O Model

• Enhanced Environment: Equitable Access directly impacts the ‘Environment’ component of Astin’s I-E-O model. By making course materials accessible, the Equitable Access removes two of the most significant barriers in higher education – access and affordability. This ensures that all students, regardless of their ‘Input’ characteristics, have equal access to course materials. In doing so, Equitable Access creates a more equitable and inclusive ‘Environment.’
• Improved Output: With an enhanced ‘Environment,’ we can expect a more meaningful ‘Output’ in the form of student success, retention, and academic achievement. Students who have immediate access to course materials are more likely to be engaged in their coursework, participate in class discussions, and perform well in assessments. This can lead to higher retention rates, better grades, and, ultimately, a more successful academic journey. A more meaningful ‘Output’ aligns with my research theoretical lens of Expectancy (Vroom) and Self-Efficacy (Bandura).
• Can Easier Access to Course Materials Improve the ‘Environment’? The answer to this question is ‘yes’. Easier and more convenient access to course materials not only improves the ‘Environment’ but also has a multiplier effect on ‘Output.’ When students are more engaged and faculty can tailor instruction more effectively, the institution as a whole can benefit from higher retention and success rates. This creates a virtuous cycle where improved ‘Environment’ leads to better ‘Output’.

Wrap Up

The challenges of student retention and attrition are complex and require a multifaceted approach – multiple parts of the institution working together. Singularly, Equitable Access will not solve these challenges. However, when used in conjunction with efforts institutions are already using to improve student success, it can be effective in addressing the challenges raised by the work of Astin and Tinto. Course materials interventions, but Equitable Access specifically, are not just about making course materials more affordable. They are about creating an educational environment where every student has an equal opportunity to succeed.

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

-MM

Rashad Nelms, Associate Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategy and Innovation at Indiana University Bloomington recently posted a question on LinkedIn that asked “Would you deliver higher education differently if you were starting an institution or company today? And if so, how would it differ”. This is an interesting question for many higher education stakeholders given the challenges higher education is currently facing. However, I want to shift this question/idea specifically to course materials. I want to repropose the question as “would you deliver course materials differently if you were starting an institution today”?

Find & Acquire

As the course materials and acquisition process shifts towards Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and Open Educational Resources, I think this question looms large for course materials. By all accounts, course materials are still a very important part of higher education in the Unite States. However, the current and most prevalent course materials acquisition and delivery model is archaic and obsolete. I call this course materials model “find & acquire” while others call it “student choice”. This model requires students to figure out what they need, where it’s located, and if they have the resources to acquire it. This may require students to navigate multiple e-commerce platforms or physically go to a campus or off-campus location and it all takes time away from their other life responsibilities and obligations. Students are required to have their course materials but receive little help in course materials acquisition and delivery process. Why?

From Scratch

The process for course material acquisition and delivery is shifting. Among other things, the growth of Inclusive Access and Equitable Access are powering it. The shift away from “find & acquire” or “student choice” is being met with resistance from a variety of stakeholders. However, if most of us were to start an institution today, from scratch, including course materials in the cost of tuition or attendance would be a no brainer. We would do everything in our power to make sure our students, regardless of gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status, had everything they needed to be successful in our new institution. We would ensure that our institution was free of friction and barriers that are known causes of failure, stop-out, and drop out.

However, in the present “find & acquire” models of course materials acquisition and delivery, we ask students to stretch their resources – be it time or finances. Institutions who still embrace the “find & acquire” models are sending a message to students that the inequities and challenges of this model are the student’s responsibility to bear alone and that you only have the right to be successful in higher education if you have the socioeconomic background or resources to do so.

Wrap Up

Given what we know about the impact course materials can have on a student throughout their higher education journey, why would we not make sure that they had access to one of, if not, the most important educational/learning resource? I accept that some may feel the issues are more complex, but to me it is simply about students and putting their course materials in their hands and on their devices. Course materials intervention models like Inclusive and Equitable Access do not change faculty pedagogy or academic freedom. They do not change how administrators go about their day-to-day work. These course materials interventions are about students and providing them the necessary resources to be successful from day one.

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

-MM

If you have ever seen/heard me present, one of the most important parts of my presentation is my favorite quote from Lester Frank Ward, “The thing that is rare is opportunity, not ability”. Ward is credited with leading the efforts to make sociology an academic discipline in higher education in the United States. His work also furthered the concept of intellectual egalitarianism. He argued that providing equal access to education was critical to creating a more equitable society and addressing the inequalities of that society. He believed that educational opportunities should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their social or economic standing. It is my opinion and belief that ensuring access to course materials, regardless of acquisition or delivery model, for every student is a partial fulfillment of Ward’s quest for intellectual egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism

Before we can understand intellectual egalitarianism, we need to understand the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a social, political, and philosophical tenet that advocates for equality among all people. The concept encompasses a wide variety of theories and movements that support the idea that all individuals should have equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources, regardless of their social, economic, and/or cultural background. Egalitarianism has had a significant influence on social and political movements like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, and LGBTQ rights movements. Essentially, it is the foundation for anyone advocating for social justice and equality.

Intellectual Egalitarianism (IE)

The Ward quote is so poignant for me is because intellectual egalitarianism is the belief that all individuals (read students) have equal potential for intellectual development and the capacity for knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, it suggests that human intelligence is not fixed and with the right opportunities and environment, people (read students) can develop their intellectual capacities. This is obviously in contrast to those who believe that specific individuals or groups are innately superior (discrimination, prejudice, racism) in terms of intelligence or cognitive abilities. Intellectual egalitarianism supports the idea that everyone should have equal access to educational opportunities and intellectual resources regardless of social background, economic status, race, or gender.

Course Materials and IE

As I said before, my belief is that increasing access to course materials for all students is a partial fulfilment of the intellectual egalitarianism Ward inspired with his work. Inclusive Access and other revolutionary course materials intervention models are the manifestation of modern-day intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. These revolutionary interventions aim to provide access to course materials to all students regardless of their social background, economic status, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic . As these course materials intervention models remove barriers to course materials for students, they fulfill the notion that when equally resourced, all students have the potential for intellectual development and capacity for knowledge/understanding. To support this, I draw on my own research that indicates increased access to course materials can impact student outcomes.

Course Materials and IE in Practice

My conviction, regardless of strength, is insufficient. So, here are a few ways increased access to course materials promotes intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but provoke thought:

Reducing Financial Barriers

The historically high costs of course materials have disproportionately affected students from lower economic backgrounds. The impact of high costs has limited their access to necessary educational resources. Inclusive Access, and similar interventions, aim to reduce financial barriers by making course materials more affordable and accessible, thus promoting a more equitable learning environment.

Empowering Underrepresented Groups

Course materials interventions like Inclusive Access can support historically underrepresented student groups like first-generation students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students with disabilities by making course materials more accessible. Increased access to essential learning resources helps create a more level educational playing field. This allows underrepresented students groups to overcome some of the systemic higher education barriers that may otherwise limit their educational opportunities. This may be the mot important aspect of intellectual egalitarianism in higher education because the current “find and acquire” course materials models prevent certain student populations from choosing their preferred major or courses because of the course materials barrier.

Social Mobility

Traditionally, higher education has been seen as a key driver of social mobility. Increased access to course materials can contribute to this by providing all students with the resources necessary to succeed. When students have equal access to knowledge, resources, and course materials, they are better positioned to seek high-paying careers.

Wrap Up

Increased access to course materials creates a more equitable and just learning environment where all students can succeed and contribute to the collective intellectual growth of society. Intellectual egalitarianism is a concept. A goal. Something to strive for. While not everyone will agree with the adoption of an egalitarian model of society, we can all agree that having access to education should not be reserved for those with resources or born into a certain demographic. As course materials stakeholders, we can create a more equitable and level educational experience for all students by ensuring they have access to the requisite course materials and learning resources.

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

-MM

Over the last five years, the growth of Inclusive Access (IA) and Open Educational Resources (OER) has sparked wild discourse within course materials and higher education. Rather than getting bogged down in the debate between the use of the Inclusive Access and OER, I want to discuss how these two course materials models can coexist and complement each other in providing students with affordable and accessible course materials. As a reminder, Inclusive Access focuses on providing, mostly digital, access to publisher driven content at reduced costs. Whereas, OER provides access to open access resources that can be used, adapted, and shared by anyone. Digital OER is generally free but print versions do cost students to obtain. So, let’s think about how IA and OER can work together to impact the most students across higher education with reduced costs and increased access to course materials.

Coexisting Course Materials

Supporters and opponents of IA and OER seem to be diametrically opposed to each other, but the reality is that both models can and need to coexist in higher education. Rather than a “one or the other” mentality, all course materials stakeholders need to embrace the other to support students on their academic journey. Here are a few ways that support the coexistence of IA and OER in higher education.

– Cost and Quality 

Inclusive Access provides students with more affordable access to publisher-driven materials, while OER offers generally free resources. Having both options available on campus can strike a balance between cost and quality. This ensures students have access to a range of materials that best fit their financial and educational needs. For students from low-income backgrounds or underrepresented student groups, this can help address issues of equity and access to higher education.

– Innovation in Teaching and Learning

Having both Inclusive Access and OER available on campus can foster a culture of innovation and creativity in teaching and learning. Faculty members can experiment with different types of resources, combining the strengths of publisher-driven content in Inclusive Access with the flexibility and adaptability of OER. This combination can lead to more engaging, effective, and student-centered learning experiences.

– Diverse Course Needs

Different courses may require different types of resources. Things like subject matter, course objectives, and learning outcomes may impact course materials choices for faculty. Inclusive Access can provide students with access to high-quality publisher-driven content that may be more suited to certain disciplines or topics. Simultaneously, OER can offer customizable and adaptable resources that can be tailored to the specific needs of other courses, particularly when faculty want to create unique learning experiences or address interdisciplinary topics.

– Faculty Choice

Offering Inclusive Access and OER options, empowers faculty members to choose the resources that best align with their pedagogical needs, course objectives, and personal beliefs about course materials and education. This can promote a sense of autonomy and ownership among faculty, as they can select the materials that best support their goals and the needs of their students. Academic freedom for faculty is paramount in higher education in the United States. Any course materials program that limits which course materials a faculty member can adopt is going to be met with resistance. Allowing faculty to choose their course materials will ensure buy-in and engagement with the materials.

– Resource Sharing and Collaboration

The availability of both Inclusive Access and OER on campus can encourage collaboration and resource sharing among faculty members. Those who have experience with either model can share their insights and experiences with colleagues. This will help build a supportive community of educators working together to improve teaching and learning.

My Position

I talk a lot about Inclusive and Equitable Access (EA), so it can appear as if I am opposed to OER. However, I have said on multiple occasions that I believe that OER has a rightful place in the course materials revolution. OER is an important element in the quest for affordability and access to course materials. Programs like the California State University Affordable Learning $olutions program is an example of how Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and OER can live under the same roof. This type of program ensures that faculty and students have access to a range of course materials options in terms of cost, quality, and adaptability.

Wrap Up

If you have spent any time as a course materials stakeholder or observer, you are aware of the seemingly opposing forces of IA and OER. Honestly, it’s absurd to think that it must be one or the other in terms of providing or adopting IA or OER options. There is a right fit for both models and the acceptance of this by ALL course materials stakeholders is critical to serving the one higher education stakeholder that matters the most: Students.

If you would like to receive updates as new articles are posted, please subscribe below. And, as always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

John Dewey, an American educational theorist, advanced the learning-by-doing principle in the early 1900s. Dewey’s theoretical perspective has been furthered as the adoption and use of digital course materials and courseware has taken rise over the decade. Learning-by-doing has also become known as the “doer-effect”. The doer-effect or learning-by-doing suggests that learners can develop a deeper understanding of concepts and retain information more effectively when they actively engage in problem-solving, experimentation, and hands-on activities rather than passively consuming information – like the one-way push of information of print. The principles of these theories align with the adoption of digital course materials and courseware in higher education. Digital course materials and courseware offer opportunities for active learning and engagement. Here are five examples of how the doer-effect/learning-by-doing theories are supported by the adoption of digital course materials and courseware:

Interactivity

Digital course materials and courseware platforms use interactive elements like simulations, virtual labs, and a variety of media which allows students to actively engage with the material, apply their knowledge, and use hands-on experience to test their understanding. The interactive features promote these learning theories by enabling students to learn more effectively through direct involvement and experimentation.

Immediate Feedback

Courseware includes instructor assessments, self-assessment, and quizzes to provide immediate feedback to students. This helps students identify areas needed for improvement which helps them adjust their learning strategies either on their own or with their instructor. This real-time feedback allows students to learn from their mistakes, reinforces their understanding of the material, and apply their knowledge more effectively.

Personalization and Adaptivity

Digital courseware can be tailored to an individual student’s needs, preferences, and learning styles. Adaptive learning algorithms adjust the content and assessments based on the student’s performance. This ensures that students receive specific support/reinforcement in areas where they are struggling.

Collaboration and Peer Learning

Many digital course materials and courseware platforms include tools for collaboration and communication like discussion boards, chat, and collaborative functions. Features like this can foster peer learning and enable students to engage in collaborative problem-solving, group projects, and knowledge sharing.

Real-world Applications

Courseware can incorporate real-world examples, case studies, and scenarios. These experiences help students see and feel the practical applications of the concepts they are learning in the classroom. Connecting course and subject content to real-world situations, courseware encourages students to apply their knowledge and skills in relevant contexts.

Wrap Up

Since John Dewey popularized the learning-by-doing theory, modern researchers have morphed the theory into what is known as the doer-effect. I believe these theoretical lenses support the adoption of digital in higher education. Digital course materials and courseware emphasize the importance of active learning, engagement, and hands-on experiences in promoting student understanding and retention. Courseware platforms can effectively facilitate these experiences and contribute to improved learning outcomes for students. I have routinely been asked if access to course materials or course materials type is more important. Based on my work, I believe that access to course materials should be the top priority. However, the growing use of digital requires us to look beyond affordability and preference to how technology can help students learn, retain information, and ultimately be more successful in their academic pursuits.

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

-MM

I have completed new research on Equitable Access and its impact on course completion rates at a 4-year institution. The study was a pre/post implementation analysis of course completion rates with the purpose of understanding if an Equitable Access course materials model had an impact on course completion rates when comparing pre and post implementation populations. The University of Southern Mississippi provided data for the study. Pre-implementation terms for the study were Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 and the post-implementation terms were Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Fall 2022. The study population was 48,967. I will cover a few highlights of the study in this blog.

Population Characteristics

This study had some unique populations characteristics, some of which were in line with other studies I have completed. Female students dominated this study as they made up 63% of the total populations. This is in line with my 2-year Equitable Access study and about 8% higher than my and Dr. Brad Piazza’s Waukesha Inclusive Access study. White students were the racial majority at 56% of the total population. This percentage is in line the 2-year EA study and 18% lower than the Waukesha IA study. However, for the first time in any study I have conducted, Black students made up over 20% of the population. Black students made up about 33% of the total study population. Traditional aged students, those 24 and younger made up over 89% of the total study population. I think this 24 and under population percentage is expected at a 4-year institution when compared to a 2-year institution.

Completion Rate Change

I am not going to give away the whole study because I want you to go check it out, but there were some interesting results when looking at the +/- change in course completion rates between the populations. Underrepresented student populations experienced a 2.5-40x greater benefit with Equitable Access than the White student racial majority. Again, White students made up over 56% of the population so, to me, this is an interesting point. It also validates the other research that I have completed showing increased benefit for underrepresented student populations. The percent change experienced by the post-implementation population is not as exaggerated as we saw in the 2-year EA study. However, if we put it into context of real students, the use of an Equitable Access program is changing the lives of nearly 300 students. Interestingly, Hispanic students had a decrease in course completion rate of -1.66% in the post-implementation population. This is the second of four studies where Hispanic students have had a negative interaction with the course materials intervention model. This population is the only one that has shown a decrease in even one of my studies. For any aspiring researchers, this may be an area to focus future research.

Statistical Significance

For statistically inclined readers, 7 of the 12 categories analyzed were found to be statistically significant. I used a p-value of .05 for this study and the 7 statistically significant category p-values ranged between .019 and .001. While all categories analyzed, except for Hispanic students, had an increase in course completion rate in the post-implementation population, the increases were not enough for four of them to be statistically significant.

 Wrap Up

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact on student course completion rates when four-year university students are provided their required course materials on or before the first day of class as part of an equitable access program, compared to students who had the responsibility to source their own required course materials (pre-implementation). As you work through the study, I challenge you to reflect on what the real, practical impact is of this study may represent. While you may not jump at the percentage change, there is real impact on changing the academic outcomes and fortunes for students. Regardless of your position on the use of Equitable Access, these models are impacting student access to course materials and improving student outcomes. My new favorite line from this paper is, “Course materials intervention research isn’t rocket science, but course materials intervention adoption could help someone become a rocket scientist”.  As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

Reference Citation: Moore, M. (2023). Equitable Access: A Course Completion Rate Analysis from a 4-Year Institution. Retrieved from https://edarxiv.org/g3wt4/.

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