This backs up previous studies that #OER are generally helpful for students, but particularly for those who may not be able to afford their materials. But the amount and complexity of the data here is much more than that. I look forward to the full report coming from the AAC&U team later! #OpenEd25

The team has a lot of data exploring ties between #OER + other factors (institution, course, the student). There is a pattern here: the affect of OER on withdrawal rates is stable across the board, but OER helps students even more when they are in one or more underrepresented groups (e.g. Pell eligible students)

I'll leave it to the researchers to share their work in their own words, but some highlights:
- Course withdrawal rates saw a significant decrease across courses using #OER, though this was also affected by context, especially by variables in the students' life and needs.

To meet all of their research goals, the team had to take multiple approaches, integrating an institutional survey (does your institution have support for #OER?), collecting course data, running focus groups, and surveying instructors. #OpenEd25

As part of this research, the team thoughtfully considered how they could limit bias and also get more robust data. For example, as they collected data on #OER adoption, they wanted more context about individual courses and instructors' adoptions, to account for ideal adoptions (localized, supported, integrated into LOs) and less ideal scenarios (simple flips)

As the presenters share, High Impact Practices have evidence that they deepen learning within course settings and are proven to work for all students. And #OER can likely fall into this as well.

The team working on this research project wanted to establish a generalizable foundation to make evidence-based arguments for #OER use, discern what conditions yield the best results for students, and eventually, integrate #OpenEd into AAC&U's list of High Impact Educational Practices.