Does Inclusive Access Affect Academic Outcomes? Interview with Dr. Elizabeth Spica
Inclusive Access textbook billing programs have become increasingly prevalent in higher education. However, there is still relatively little scholarly research relating to its impact on academic outcomes.
Enter Dr. Elizabeth Spica, whose article “Inclusive Access: A Multi-institutional Study of Academic Outcomes from a Statewide Community College Automatic Billing eTextbook Pilot” was recently published in the Community College Journal of Research and Practice.
The peer-reviewed study is the first and largest of its kind, and its findings raise questions about whether these programs live up to the promise of improving academic outcomes. Read on for our interview with Dr. Elizabeth Spica (ES).
Tell us a little about your study and why you decided to research student outcomes pertaining to Inclusive Access programs.
ES: This study was conducted shortly after the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) piloted Inclusive Access in effort to lower textbook costs. TBR is the largest public system of higher education in Tennessee, serving more than 120,000 community and technical college students annually. I wanted to find out how, if at all, the automatic textbook billing pilot affected academic outcomes.
“I wanted to find out how, if at all, the automatic textbook billing pilot affected academic outcomes”
The key finding of the study is that Inclusive Access programs did not show any measurable improvement in student outcomes—either for students overall or those more likely to be underserved. Can you walk us through the results?
ES: The analysis focused on “DFW rates,” which compares students who either withdrew from the course or received a D, F, or Incomplete grade to students who passed with an A-C grade and therefore presumably “succeeded” in the course. Results showed no statistically significant improvements or declines between the Inclusive Access pilot semester and the two previous falls in which the courses were taught. This lack of significance was evident for both students overall and for specific populations of concern for Tennessee, like non-White, low-income, and learners over age 25. So, at least with regard to academic outcomes, this study produced no evidence to support Inclusive Access participation over previous methods of purchasing course materials.
Your article was published in a peer reviewed journal, while much of the other information available on this topic is based on case studies. Why else should campus leaders take note of your results?
ES: What sets this study apart is its scale—Tennessee Board of Regents provided outcome data for 141 courses across all 13 of its community colleges. I did not cherry-pick courses for inclusion in this study—if all sections of a course piloted Inclusive Access, that course was included, period. In measuring DFW rates, my study also accounts for outcomes of students who didn’t make it through the course because they dropped or withdrew, versus studies that only tally grades for students who actually made it to the end of the semester.
What’s also unique is the method of analysis: Hierarchical Linear Modeling or “HLM.” This method better avoids the Type I errors you often see with more simplistic methods of analysis like chi-square and t tests, where your results might seem statistically significant but that significance is actually due to random variation or factors totally unrelated to what you’re actually trying to measure.
“[A]t least with regard to academic outcomes, this study produced no evidence to support Inclusive Access participation over previous methods”
Readers of this interview may be considering Inclusive Access programs on their campus. What do you think their takeaway should be?
ES: In absence of significant benefits to academic outcomes, evaluations of Inclusive Access programs become more a question of value vis-à-vis explicit and implicit costs—costs to the publishers, the bookstore, the institution, the faculty, and most importantly, to the student consumer. I would like to see future research investigate the hidden administrative costs of implementing these programs, in addition to rigorous evaluation of the direct costs billed to students. Even if Inclusive Access materials appear less expensive than the status quo, any cost has a price to students. What costs $50 today ends up costing much more ten years from now once student loan interest accrues.
Instead, I would encourage leaders to acknowledge how their faculty want to teach and how their students want to learn; then, simply tell publishers what they need. Publishers have the infrastructure and ability to accommodate a wide range of needs. For instance, maybe an institution prefers an opt-in model, rather than the dominant opt-out model, so that faculty can select the formats by which they teach and students have agency over how they learn. Students are savvy consumers—if this digital distribution method is worth it, students will see that, and they’ll sign up.
“In absence of significant benefits to academic outcomes, evaluations of Inclusive Access programs become more a question of value vis-à-vis explicit and implicit costs”
What’s next for your research, or for you professionally?
ES: My latest research explores how factors like tech-savviness and wifi at home impact students’ decisions to use digital or print course materials. You can check that out now in the International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Outside of research, I’m enjoying my work with the Wikimedia Foundation and learning to navigate the legal architectures that impact—and ultimately determine—how and whether people have access to knowledge.
Elizabeth Spica holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration with a concentration in Governmental Relations and Policy Studies. She is also a Creative Commons Global Network Member currently serving as legal fellow at Wikimedia Foundation. Her research interests include free knowledge initiatives, consumer protection, and internet law and policy.