Change usually starts small
The phrase “catalyst for change” can suggest a sudden shift. On most campuses the reality is slower and more uneven. Open education tends to enter a university through a few people and spread, or fail to spread, depending on whether it finds support. This article follows a typical path, based on general patterns rather than any single institution. Real campuses differ, and not every one follows these stages.
Stage one: individual lecturers
It often begins with a single lecturer. Perhaps they are frustrated that students cannot afford the set textbook, or they have noticed a good openly licensed text, or they want to share their own lecture notes publicly. They make a small change in one course: swapping a reading, posting slides with a clear license, or inviting students to improve a handout.
This stage has real strengths. It is quick, requires no committee, and gives practical experience. It also has limits. The work depends on one person’s time and interest. When that lecturer moves on, the course may revert. Others in the department may never hear about it.
What helps at this stage is modest: a short guide to licenses, a colleague who can answer questions, and a bit of recognition. What hinders is unclear rules about who owns course material, and fear of getting copyright wrong.
Stage two: a small network
Word spreads through conversation, a workshop or a shared interest. A few staff begin to swap resources and ideas. Some start to experiment with approaches such as open pedagogy, where students help create learning materials. Informal networks like this can be energetic, but they are fragile. Without a place to store and find resources, effort gets duplicated and forgotten.
Stage three: the library and support units
A turning point often comes when a support unit takes an interest. Libraries are common candidates: they already deal with licensing, discovery and long-term access, and academic librarians can help staff find suitable material, check licenses and set up repositories. Teaching and learning centers can offer design advice, and accessibility staff can review materials.
Once support exists, adoption stops depending on individual heroics. It becomes easier for the next lecturer to start. A modest grant scheme or release time for staff is a typical next step, though funding varies and is often short-term. This is also where open educational practices become a shared vocabulary, rather than a private interest.
Stage four: department and program level
Real change in what students experience tends to be decided at department or program level, where reading lists and course sequences are agreed. A program that moves its core first-year courses to shared materials reaches many more students than a scattering of individual changes, and it can coordinate review and updates.
This stage is harder than it sounds. Colleagues have different views on content, some prefer the control that comes with a familiar commercial text, and a common set of materials requires agreement. Departmental silos can stall promising work: a good resource in one department may not be known in the next. Progress depends on trust and on someone being willing to coordinate.
Stage five: institutional commitment
Eventually, institutions may adopt strategies, policies or funding lines. This can make openness part of how staff are supported and rewarded, and may influence campus culture. It can also feel top-down. A policy without support often produces compliance on paper rather than real change. Questions about staff freedom and workload come to the fore. The decision-making here is covered in more detail by discussions of institutional governance, and what matters in practice is that policy and grassroots effort reinforce each other.
What slows the spread
Several obstacles recur:
- Time. Finding, evaluating and adapting resources is work, and workloads are already full.
- Recognition. If promotion rewards research and not teaching innovation, there is little incentive.
- Quality concerns. Staff may worry, sometimes with reason, about the accuracy and polish of free materials.
- Funding cycles. Pilot money ends, and maintenance suffers.
- Student awareness. Students may not notice or ask for lower-cost options unless told.
- Uneven access. Open materials that assume reliable internet do not help everyone.
Does it add up to institutional reform?
Sometimes. When enough courses, support units and policies align, the effect on cost, teaching practice and sense of purpose can be noticeable. But openness alone rarely transforms a university, and the evidence that it changes learning results is mixed. It may be better described as one lever among several, working alongside decisions about teaching, funding and technology.
The most practical lesson from this pattern is that sustainable change comes from connecting the stages: giving enthusiasts support, giving support units a mandate, and giving institutions evidence of what works locally. Skipping a stage, by announcing a policy before anyone has experience, or relying on enthusiasts without any institutional backing, tends to produce disappointing results.