Testing the phrase “game-changer”
Open educational resources, usually shortened to OER, are teaching and learning materials that are free to use and are published under open licenses or placed in the public domain. The term “game-changer” is often attached to them. It is worth asking what, specifically, changes, for whom, and how large the change is.
A fair summary is that OER change one important variable, the price and permissions attached to materials, and that this can narrow some gaps in access. They leave many other variables in place. Whether that adds up to a changed game depends on the setting.
How free materials narrow gaps
The clearest mechanism is financial. In some courses, students who cannot afford the required book go without, share a copy, or buy it late. Replacing a paid text with one of the open textbooks now available in many subjects removes that source of unevenness in who has the materials on the first day. This is the gain most often reported, and it is plausible on its face.
Several smaller mechanisms follow from open licensing:
- Everyone has the same version. When all students can obtain the same text, a teacher can plan on the assumption that everyone has it.
- Materials can be edited. A teacher can shorten a chapter, correct an error or replace examples without waiting for a publisher’s next edition.
- Materials can be translated. A school serving families who speak another language can have material translated rather than rely on whatever a publisher decides to release.
- Materials can travel. Printed copies, shared drives and local servers can carry a resource to places with limited internet.
- Teachers can share. Colleagues can pass on lesson plans and exercises, which spreads effort across a system that may have little time or money.
Each of these helps the students who previously had least. The size of the effect varies, and reports of savings or satisfaction do not by themselves show better learning.
Where learners are still left behind
It helps to be specific about the students who may not benefit.
Students without devices or connectivity. Many OER are digital. Without a device, power and a reliable connection, a free file is unreachable. The connectivity gap affects rural and low-income households disproportionately, so the students with the greatest need for free materials may be those least able to use online ones. Printing or distributing offline copies can help, but costs and organization must be supplied by someone.
Students who need extra support. A resource is not teaching. Learners who are behind, learning in a second language or studying alone often need explanation and feedback. Free texts do not supply these.
Students whose needs the material does not meet. If an OER has no captions, no text alternatives or no structure that a screen reader can follow, disabled learners can be excluded despite the license. Language and cultural fit matter similarly: a text written for another country may not make sense to local learners without adaptation.
Students at institutions that do not adopt them. OER only help if a teacher or institution chooses to use them. Where adoption is patchy, access gaps may simply follow the pattern of which teachers had time and encouragement to switch.
Students who need recognition. Studying from open materials does not automatically produce a credential, and not every employer or college accepts alternative evidence of learning.
Why gaps can persist even when materials are free
There is also a more uncomfortable possibility. Learners who already have strong preparation, a quiet place to study and a supportive environment are often best placed to use free materials. If nothing else changes, free resources can benefit them first and most, and a gap may narrow in one respect while staying or even widening in another. This is not a reason to avoid OER. It is a reason to pair them with support aimed at those who need it most, such as tutoring, flexible deadlines, community study spaces and help with devices.
What research can and cannot tell us
Effectiveness research on OER commonly looks at cost savings, student and teacher attitudes, and course results, sometimes alongside student retention. Cost findings are easiest to measure. Findings on learning are harder, because course results are affected by many things, and students who choose or receive free materials may differ from those who do not. Where results are reported, a careful reader checks how many students were involved, whether there was a fair comparison group, how outcomes were measured and for which groups.
It is also worth looking for results broken down by group. An average improvement might hide the fact that some students gained and others did not. Evidence on how OER affect specific groups is thinner than evidence on overall savings, and conclusions often differ between settings, so it is wise to be cautious about any single dramatic figure.
Practical lessons
For educators and institutions considering OER with equity in mind, a few sensible habits follow from the above:
- Ask who is not currently served, and test whether a free resource reaches them.
- Offer offline and printed versions, and check accessibility before adoption.
- Check that the material suits the local language and context.
- Plan support alongside the material, not instead of it.
- Measure outcomes by group where possible, not just overall averages.
A fair verdict
OER can narrow some access gaps, especially around the cost of materials, and they offer freedoms that closed resources lack. They are better described as a powerful tool than as a game-changer in themselves. Their effect on equity depends on whether the surrounding conditions allow learners to use them.