Open educational resources: undertheorized research and untapped potential

This paper is in response to the manuscript entitled “Open educational resources and college textbook choices: a review of research on efficacy and perceptions” (Hilton in Educ Technol Res Dev 64(4): 573–590, 2016) from a theoretical perspective. The response describes the way many of the papers reviewed by Hilton were undertheorized, limiting their potential for impact. A brief summary of more recent research shows one current direction toward stronger theorization of OER research. Over the short-term, including during the rapid shift to digital learning catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, OER adoption can be expected to save college students money and close the achievement gap between Pell-eligible students and their wealthier peers. Over the longer term, this benefit will likely disappear, and faculty will need to more fully explore the affordances of the 5Rs in order to create dramatic improvements in success for all students.

The Decline of College Textbook Publishing: Cengage Learning and McGraw-Hill

America’s college textbook publishers historically had a business model based on continuing profits and growth led by high prices. However, that model eroded as competition from the used-book market and rental textbooks resulted in falling textbook sales and losses for publishers. Textbook publishers are currently revising their business model so as to move away from printed textbooks to digital (online) educational materials. Also, publishers are downsizing their operations and undergoing mergers with each other to survive in the marketplace. The 2019 merger proposal of McGraw-Hill and Cengage Learning reflects the current problems of college textbook publishing: The merger would be between two financially weak companies that are attempting to reduce overhead and production costs and create additional revenue streams. However, the U.S. Department of Justice’s concerns about the harmful effects on competition led to the companies’ agreement to abandon their plans to merge in May 2020. JEL Classification: A00, K21, L22, L41

SPARC Filing Against the Merger Between Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education

On May 1, 2019, Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education — two of the three largest college textbook publishers — announced plans to merge. The merger would turn the college textbook market into an effective duopoly, dominated by the combined post-merger company and a single rival, Pearson. This merger would have drastic negative consequences for competition and student consumers in an industry that has already engaged in decades of relentless price increases that have made higher education harder to afford. Furthermore, as textbook publishers accelerate their transition to digital materials, a merger of this size could be a step toward forming a new data giant in the education sector. On August 14, 2019, SPARC submitted this extensive filing to the Department of Justice opposing the merger on the grounds that it would violate federal antitrust thresholds and harm the ability of students and their families to afford higher education.

Essential and core books for veterinary medicine

Objectives:This study defined core and essential lists of recent, English-language veterinary medicine books using a data-driven methodology for potential use by a broad audience, including libraries that are building collections supporting veterinary sciences and One Health initiatives.Methods: Book titles were collected from monograph citation databases, veterinary examination reading lists, veterinary college textbook and library reserve lists, and published bibliographies. These lists were combined into a single list with titles ranked by the number of occurrences.Results: The methodology produced a core list of 122 monographs and an essential list of 33 titles. All titles are recent, edition neutral, English language monographs. One title is out of print.Conclusions: The methodology captured qualitative and quantitative input from four distinct populations who use veterinary monographs: veterinary practitioners, educators, researchers, and librarians. Data were collected and compiled to determine core and essential lists that represented all groups. Unfortunately, data are not available for all subareas of veterinary medicine, resulting in uneven subject coverage. This methodology can be replicated and adapted for other subject areas.