Hi Patricia thanks for providing a wealth of insights on Open Educational Resources (OER). OER is “the leading trends in distance education and greatly welcomed due to online education embracing open movement learning” (Sanchez, 2013). Relying solely on course textbooks limits student knowledge of real world practices which reduces learning. Technology has significantly changed the academic services and provides students with opportunities for research. Open resources removes limitations from research and allows students to venture out to obtain a wealth of information on course objectives.

Sanchez, C. (2013). The use of technology resources for education: A new professional competency for teachers. Intell Learning Series Blog. Intell Corporation.

Patricia,

You present some brilliant ideas for providing students affordable education, so they will not be in depth for life. I was surprised to learned from your work that the cost of education was increased 80% for the books and four times the inflation rate. That is very challenging for any student to come up with the financial aspect of their education. Therefore, I agree that providing students with resources that would be available for their learning will increase their window of learning opportunities.

Having students use books only is not only expensive as you mentioned, but also provides outdated informaton. In the current word of technology when the knowledge is at the fingetips with the Internet, a lot of information is online soon as it is born. Using books places students in a previous era of information because by the books are edited and reviewed and reach the final stage refined for printing, the information is already old and outdated. Therefore, providing students with course materials, modules and education materials that can  be reused by the next cohort of students is really the way to go especially because as you mentioned some resources and not free for the general public, but available for the government institutions. Making available to students videos, podcasts, and other applications in the Internet is providing opportunities to more students that would not otherwise be able to afford them.

When I start reading this paper, I was under the impresion that we do not have such opportunities in the US, but I was pleasantly surprised to learn about Massachussetts and Carnegie. Hving more schools and university adopting this model, I believe would be a step forward in decreasing depth for our next generation, while increasing their opportunities to participate in a higher education program and get their degrees. Great work.

Dr Ursan

Dear Authors:

Thank you for your hard work and the opportunity to review your paper.  My feedback is outlined below:

1.  The opening paragraph and inherent thesis does not quite match the title of the paper and abstract content -- the reader is led to believe the primary focus is on textbook costs when, in fact, you are stressing the value of open educational resources.  Is there an opportunity to have a larger focused thesis on the value of open educational resources while using the very well stated textbook paragraph as support?

2.  Consider the tone of "...textbook costs can crush their goal of earning a college degree" in the first paragraph -- is this true?  Yes, the costs of textbooks (as you very well outline) is high, but don't students also pay for ancillary items such as access codes and supplementary materials? Further, you cite the cost of textbooks as having increased 80% while tuition and fees have arisen 1000%.  This would indicate tuition and fees are the larger culprit in crushing goals.  Please consider revising and your use of the word "crush" -- I believe this is hyperbolic and less than scholarly, which detracts from the very salient points you have in the section.

3.   Your concluding paragraphs on OER are extremely powerful and well supported.

4.  Page 5 has a sentence that reads "The early beginnings of open educational options for students can be found in Great Britain’s, The Open University founded in 1969."  Please check the construct of the sentence, particularly the placement of the comma after Great Britain's.

5. Please check the alignment of Table 1's first row (might be a PDF conversion issue but it appears out of line with the rest of the table).

6.   Page 9.  "Blooms Taxonomy" should read "Bloom's Taxonomy".

7.  Page 9.  "A syllabus was created..." is passive voice -- is passive voice acceptable for a peer-reviewed journal? I've seen some instances where it's accepted and some not, you may want to review such cases.

8.  Page 10.  You reference Table 3 but I believe you mean Table 2. Your paper does not contain a Table 3.

9.  Page 14.  You have quotes but no citations - are citations needed here?

10.  Pages 15 and 16 :  "The theory behind OER's"...should be "The theory behind OERs.." since you mean plural and not possessive. 

11.  References.  I believe APA version 6 no longer has "retrieved from" labels.  The first reference should read

 You may want to validate the Grasgreen reference as well (assuming APA version 6 is what you intend).

Overall, you have a compelling journal article with excellent research and sound rationale for your thesis.  Well done.

Regards,

Dr. Michael Powers

Overall this is an excellent paper.  The cost is mentioned several times in the paper; however, no specific cost or percentage was discussed.  Is this a case where the cost is shifted from the student to the university or is this a case where the cost is significantly increased over current methods?  Some more specific discussion about cost would be helpful.

There are a few errors in grammar and punctuation.  Here are a few I noted:
p. 5 last sentence - grammar??
p. 11 period missing before "In order"
p. 11 "the college had limited resources to managing a relationship" should be "the college had limited resources to manage a relationship".
p.11 "learn" should be "terms"
p.11 "and compiled and averaged" delete "and compiled"
p.11 "criteria were used" should be "criteria used"
p.12 capitalize ""Learned"
p.13 1st sentence needs to rewritten
p.15 "for profit" should be "for-profit"
p.16 capitalize "Internet"

I hope this feedback helps you improve your paper.

Hi Dr. Powers and Mary, 

Thank you for your feedback. We'll incorporate all suggestions at the end of the review period. 

Angela 

Thanks to the authors for presenting this article.  The article highlights higher education's responsibility for providing quality education at reasonable costs.  Attached is a copy of the paper with the comments made.  I look forward to reading the final copy.  Topic is interesting and provides new avenues for improving higher education programs.

Dr. David Duren, Colangelo College of Business

Hi Dr. Duren,

I appreciate the comments!

Angela 

Dear Authors,

This paper is nicely compiled.

On page 4, it states, "Nearly two-thirds of all chief academic officers agree that open education resources have the potential to reduce costs at their institutions." Any specifics by approximately how much in cost-reduction?

On page 6, it states, "Early adopters of OER considered education to be a public good and suggested that openness can create positive change in education...". What are some examples that OER would create positive change in education?

Throughout the paper, there phrases that seem to require hyphenation, such as "low cost," "sign on," and "student-experience." On page 15, It is also stated "for profit" in one section and "for-profit" in another section; both can be correct although consistency is suggested.

Blessings,

Peter

Hi Peter,

You have some great points. We'll incorporate those in the final draft.

Thank you for reading the paper.

Angela 

Dear Authors:

I appreciate the opportunity to review your scholarly work. Below are my comments:

The following citations are not in the references:

1. Bliss, Hilton, & Wiley (2013). What you have is Bliss, T., Hilton, J., Wiley, D. & Thanos, K. (2013).
2. Hewlett Foundation (2013)
3. Scholarly, Resources, & Academic, Coalition (2014)

There are 4 references that are not cited:

     Hylen (n.d.)

     Open Knowledge (2014)

     Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (2014)

     UNESCO Institute for Statistics (n.d.)

 You may also want to crosscheck to see if APA calls for the names of the months to be abbreviated. I noticed that the following references had abbreviations:

1. Grasgreen, A. (2014, Jan 28)
2. Green, S. (2013, Nov 17), and
3. Jamrisko, M., & Kolet, I. (2012, Aug 15)

 Dr. Toure  

Hi Dr. Toure,

Thanks for pointing out the APA errors. We'll revise accordingly.

Angela 

Dear Colleagues:

First and foremost, thank you for allowing me to take part in the review process.  The paper is well-written and offered compelling research on the use of OERs in higher education.  As discussions on affordability  increase, the topic is definitely relevant.  My feedback is below:

1. In the Introduction, are the costs per student for undergraduate or graduate students or both?  It may be helpful to distinguish who is included in this group.
2. Even though you are maintaining the confidentiality of Online U., can you add citations that list Online U for the Educational Resources paragraph (1, 2)?
3. On page 11 (para. 1) - Need a period after the word requirements.  Also, in (para. 2), please check wording (reasonable in "learns" (I think this may be terms).

Finally, I would be curious to see if there is any linkage to financial aid costs and costs of textbooks.  Does the data highlight any linkage that could provide additional support?

Overall, the paper was excellent, and I gained a lot of insight into your topic.

Dr. Kimberly Pierre

Thank you for your hard work and providing the insightful information. The interest in OER is gaining momentum in academia. One additional source for you to consider is Open Biola, which provides video lectures on topics including ethics, leadership, business, and many others.

http://open.biola.edu/

Thanks again!
DPM

Dr. Pierre and Dr. Moosbrugger,

Thanks for reading our paper. We appreciate your insights. 

Angela 

HI! Patricia,

The details provided in the work on the research that was executed by the "example institution" used in your paper as they examined, reviewed and determined the criteria and provided to use,  reminded me of a "Number Painting assignment in art" where the students paint one area at  a time and upon completion are able to view the "whole piece". The layers and intricate details of the journey taken in realizing the areas and challenges to consider for an institution to effectively choose and utilize the best provider was thorough and detailed.

The topic you chose is indeed an interesting one especially when the current president has suggested offering a community college education for free in exchange for community service and the cancellation of student loans after the student has paid on their loan  consistently and consecutively for ten years, makes the immediacy of implementing OERs on a larger scale more realistic than ever.  Therefore, the option for a free or low cost tuition education when earning an undergraduate degree is quite appealing.

Overall, the material was informative, educational and presented realistic advantages and disadvantages to consider in the pursuit of providing an undergraduate degree using open educational resources (OERs).

The abstract made it clear to me that the paper will focus on higher education administrators providing a low-cost degree by using OERs. The paper heavily focuses on the cost of textbooks as the foundation for pursuing OERs as an educational option and with this some supporting evidence through the use of surveys as evidence that the cost of textbooks is the "number 1 deterrent, hindrance or delay" in students pursuing or completing their degree is needed. While the cost specifics of textbooks costing $1,200 per year per student and 10 billion cumulatively are convincing and persuasive for higher educational officials choosing your suggested alternative of OERs, there could be many reasons students do not complete or pursue their undergraduate degree. Therefore, the hardcore evidence of the cost of textbooks being the number one reason is relevant and necessary.

Furthermore, I did not read any information on the response of the financial impact to the publishing industry and any challenges they will present in university's switching from the traditional publishing products to OERs. Additionally, the issue of university's choosing to sign contracts with academic publishers who have a history of raising the price of books and also creating new editions each year that will cost in the three digits is not addressed. Also, universities negotiating for lower priced textbooks with the publishing companies is not mentioned.

I would also suggest using academic language and replace the word "schooling". All language in academic papers is forma-this may have been a "slip up". 

The paper also made it clear that the focus was on "self-paying" students and not those who need financial aid since most financial aid students use vouchers provided by the school to purchase their books and therefore, this would not apply to them. 

Pinara D. Black Smith, M.P.A., M.A.

Hi Pinara,

Thanks for your insights and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Online U didn't accept Federal Title IV funding and that's why we didn't incorporate vouchers into our discussion. You brought up a good point on university's relationship with publishing companies. We'll look into that aspect in future research. 

Thanks,

Angela

Hi! Angela,

I thought your research idea was very unique and innovative because technology will only advance and become more powerful empowering others who have been locked out of the "privileged educational experience" because of the "unnecessary inflated cost" for many students.

Another way that publishers are trying to keep up with these changes in the digital delivery of information is by selling access cards that come with an ebook and academic quizzes and assignments that students must buy if they want to do well in the course. Sometimes the student cannot obtain the access card without purchasing the  hardcover textbook and the selling point is that the access card is cheaper especially if you have to have it to take the quizzes (this part cannot be accomplished without the consent of the professor). The professor has to comply because they are teaching a class by contract, so they give the assignments from the  ebook or access card and this is all supported by the university. I would definitely believe that the institutions would have to be obtaining perks in order to allow the publishing companies to sell their students books that cost in the hundreds.

Another strategy is also for them to create books without the spine that the bookstore will not accept to resale, so while the student buys the book for $60 or $75 dollars, they cannot return it for resale value and lose money on needing a book for only one semester. It is all quite suspicious to me especially when you have the academic book companies dining and wining the faculty and librarians who are the decision makers on such purchases, such as New Orleans, placing them in the best hotels, feeding them the finest entrees and providing for them the best nightlife activity options-this all counts when its time to choose a book.

No one has complained so this will continue. The people mainly affected by this are busy in school, taking classes, working overtime to pay for their education. 

Dr. Michael Powers;

Thank you for your constructive feedback. I will like to respond to items 7 and  11.  To the best of my knowledge, passive voice is not acceptable in a student's thesis/dissertation but I have come across it several times in journal articles. Regarding APA 6th edition reference formatting, as of a year ago, "Retrieved from" is still acceptable.

Authors: Dr. Neely, Dr. Tucker, and Ms Au;

Thank you for a well done job. As Dr. Powers had rightly noted, you have a potential good journal article here and have worked hard on it. Your concluding remark on OER is well supported  However, to make your paper better, I agree with Dr. Powers on the corrections he suggested on items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Again, good job! It is a honor to have the opportunity of reviewing your paper. Thank you.

Dr. B