Why “current state” is a hard question
Anyone asking how widely open educational resources are used soon meets a measurement problem. There is no single count of OER use, and the figures that do exist depend on who was asked, when, and what “use” meant. A teacher who occasionally borrows an openly licensed image, a department that has replaced a textbook, and a national program that mandates open materials are all “adoption”, but they are very different things.
So this article avoids quoting a headline percentage. Instead it explains what the evidence generally looks like, where growth is reasonably clear, and where it has been slower than early supporters hoped.
Kinds of adoption
It helps to separate several levels.
- Awareness. Does the instructor know that openly licensed materials exist?
- Occasional use. Do they use parts of open resources, such as images, exercises or readings?
- Course-level adoption. Has an open text or set of materials replaced the main commercial one for a course?
- Institutional adoption. Does a school, college or system support open materials through policy, funding or staff?
- Adaptation and creation. Do teachers revise or produce materials of their own?
Surveys in several countries have generally found that awareness is lower than people expect and that occasional use is more common than full course-level replacement. The exact proportions differ by country, level and subject, and they change over time, so any number older than a few years should be read with caution.
Where progress is clearer
Adoption has tended to be strongest where a few conditions line up.
High-cost, high-enrollment courses. Where textbook costs are a visible burden and many students take the same course, there is a clear case for a free alternative. Introductory courses in common subjects are the usual examples.
Places with organized support. Where a library, a teaching-support unit or a state program helps instructors find, check and adapt materials, adoption is more likely. Library services are often the quiet engine behind this.
Policy backing. Funding programs and institutional policies can make a difference, although the effect depends on whether they are accompanied by practical help rather than only a statement of intent. An open adoption policy that stays on paper rarely changes what happens in a classroom.
Self-directed learning. Outside formal courses, openly licensed reference works, videos and exercises are heavily used, though people often do not know or care about the license.
Where progress has stalled
Several patterns of slow progress are reported repeatedly. These are general observations, and they do not apply equally everywhere.
- Discoverability. Teachers often say they find it hard to locate suitable, trustworthy materials, especially for specialized or advanced topics.
- Time. Reviewing and adapting a resource takes effort. Concerns about educator workload are among the most common reasons given for staying with a familiar commercial text.
- Ancillary materials. Commercial packages often include slides, question banks and homework systems. Open alternatives may lack equivalents, or have them in less polished form.
- Quality doubts. Some instructors worry that free means lower quality. Evidence on this is mixed and depends on the resource, not the license.
- Gaps in coverage. Coverage is uneven across subjects, languages and levels. Some areas are well served and others barely at all.
- Recognition. In some institutions, creating or adapting materials is not valued in hiring or promotion, so there is little incentive to do it.
- Sustainability. Projects that lose funding can leave users with outdated material.
Broader adoption obstacles also include licensing confusion and, in some places, limited technology, which links to the digital divide.
What the trend probably looks like
Taken as a whole, the picture most commentators describe is steady but uneven growth rather than a sudden shift. There are more openly licensed materials than there used to be, more policies that mention them, and more students who have used at least one. At the same time, in many systems commercial textbooks and proprietary course platforms remain dominant, and open materials are often used alongside them, not in place of them.
Be wary of two opposite errors. One is to assume that because the idea has been discussed for over twenty years it must now be mainstream. The other is to assume that it has failed because it has not replaced everything. A more accurate reading is that adoption is real in particular niches and still limited elsewhere.
Reading adoption claims critically
When you meet a statement about how widespread OER now is, some questions help:
- Who was surveyed, and how many responded? Surveys of enthusiasts will overstate use.
- What counts as “use”? Occasional use and course-level replacement are not the same.
- Is the figure about awareness, intention or actual behavior?
- Is it a national picture, one institution or one program?
- Does the source gain from a higher or lower number?
Savings figures deserve the same care. A claim that students saved a certain amount typically depends on assumptions about what they would otherwise have bought, and not every student buys every book.
Things that would show real progress
If you are trying to judge whether the field is moving, some indicators are more informative than slogans: whether courses keep using open materials after the initial grant, whether resources are updated, whether new teachers adopt them without special support, and whether students report using them. Those signs are harder to collect than download counts, which is why they are rarer.
Summary position
Open educational resources are established and growing in places, but they are not yet the default in most education systems, and uptake depends heavily on local support, time and incentives. Anyone planning around them should expect gradual change and verify claims against the specific context.