Deeply Digital

Download full report as a PDF file:

is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The ongoing support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation makes these reports possible, and we are thankful for their continuing guidance. We're also grateful to the Online Learning Consortium, who has served as administrator for our grant and provided invaluable feedback.

This project would not be possible without the faculty and administrators — over 3,000 respondents — who completed our survey. We review every response and read every submitted comment and have included some in this report with permission. Each quote is as close to the original as possible; modifications were made only to remove personally identifying information or correct obvious typos.

The project also received great support from the open education community, who offered feedback and advice throughout the course of this project. Particularly, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) and Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) helped with dissemination and communication of the surveys to their members. We thank them for helping to improve the final version.

This report would not have been possible without support from our colleagues. We thank Nate Ralph for his extensive copy editing, I. Elaine Allen for feedback throughout the process, and Mark Favazza for designing the report cover.

Finally, we also want to thank everyone who reads this report. Your comments and feedback help shape the future of this project and are always appreciated.

Julia E. Seaman
Jeff Seaman
Bay View Analytics
2025

Executive Summary

This is the 14th report in a series of surveys tracking curricula discovery, selection, and adoption processes in U.S. higher education. The surveys have tracked the growth of digital materials and open educational resources (OER) in higher education classrooms since 2009, providing trends on adoption and sentiments. The results also covered the abrupt transitions to remote teaching and the return to in-person instruction during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The survey responses for this analysis were collected in April 2025, from a total of 3,447 faculty. The respondents come from all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.

The key takeaways from this year’s survey are:

· Post-Pandemic Shifts: Institutions have stabilized hybrid models after pandemic-era spikes in online learning, with blended and fully online courses and digital tools becoming integral, despite a decline in fully online courses from their pandemic peak.

· Curricula Material Formats: Faculty find benefits in both print and digital formats, and the majority offer both to students, though required textbooks are more likely to be available digitally compared to print.

· Curricula Material Rating: Overall, faculty give positive ratings to their materials, with higher grades related to content and lower ones related to costs; faculty using required textbooks available in a digital format give slightly higher ratings overall than those using print-only.

· OER Awareness and Adoption: OER awareness rose slightly this year, with an even larger rise in the number of faculty using OER as required course materials; the increased use is reflected in faculty ratings as OER materials receive more "A" grades compared to commercial publishers.

Study Results

Teaching Modalities

Face-to-face instruction remains dominant, with fully online and blended model courses maintaining steady presences, reflecting the post-pandemic adaptation and hybrid learning persistence.

We asked our respondents to describe how they were currently teaching during the 2024-25 academic year.

A bar graph depicting the current teaching modality for higher education faculty in 2024-25

The most common teaching modality for the 2024-25 academic year were fully face-to-face courses, with 72% of faculty teaching at least one course fully face-to-face. A smaller percentage of faculty (48%) taught at least one course that was fully online, where no instruction was done in-person. Blended courses, mixing both online and in-person instruction in some form, were less common — just 23% of faculty taught at least one blended course.

Faculty generally teach more than one course during an academic term, and they may not share the same format. A faculty member might teach two versions of the same course — one fully face-to-face, the other fully online. Or they might teach one course subject online and another that features an in-person lab component.

A pie chart depicting number of modalities taught for 2024-25 higher educational faculty.

For the 2024-25 academic year, 65% of respondents indicated that all their courses were offered in just one modality. The remaining faculty members were split between teaching two modalities (27%) and all three modalities (8%). This is almost identical to the previous year's data, where 66% taught exclusively in one modality, 26% taught across two modalities, and 8% utilized all three modalities.

Bar graph depicting teaching modality by year for higher education faculty

In recent years, there have been notable shifts in teaching modalities as educators and institutions adapt to changing circumstances. In the 2024-25 academic year, the majority of instruction remained predominantly face-to-face, with 72% of courses being taught in this manner. This represents a slight decrease from the previous year, 2023-24, where 75% of teaching was in-person, and the same as 2022-23. This suggests a stabilization in the return to traditional classroom settings after the disruptions caused by the pandemic.

Blended or hybrid learning models have remained relatively stable in recent years. In both 2024-25 and 2023-24, this mode accounted for 23% of courses, demonstrating consistency after a slight drop from 26% in the previous year. The trend had been gradually declining since 2018-19, when it accounted for 29% of teaching modalities. This suggests that many institutions have settled into hybrid models without further shifts, potentially reflecting a balance between the advantages of in-person learning and the flexibility of online offerings.

On the other hand, fully online courses experienced an initial decline from 71% to 49% in 2021-22, then dropped further to 40% in 2023-24 and 39% in 2022-23, before rising again to 48% in 2024-25. This increase in the current year may indicate new changes in institutions supporting fully online instruction, in addition to the pandemic's impact over the past few years.

Overall, these trends illustrate an initial post-pandemic shift back toward face-to-face instruction, which then stayed relatively stable over the next three years. There has been a steady use of blended models throughout the period, along with a persistent and possibly growing presence of fully online courses. The shifts reflect broader changes in educational preferences, technological progress, and ongoing reactions to global events like the COVID-19 pandemic. As institutions continue to adapt, it is likely that these modes of instruction will keep evolving to meet both logistical challenges and pedagogical innovations.

Textbook Formats

The majority of faculty provide format options for students, with the sustained shift towards digital formats, as 9 in 10 required textbooks are now available digitally.

“I have been using the same textbook for the past several years and it has proven to be a wonderful resource and platform for primary source engagement and context overview."

“I don't have an assigned book for the course, but instead assign students a selection of published essays and criticism, all of which are made available to them through links or PDF files (or via the library, for materials that aren't freely available online)."

“I am the author of the textbook so it has everything I want in the course. It’s available for free online."

Pie chart depicting textbook use by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

For the 2024-25 academic year, 75% of faculty reported requiring a textbook for their largest-enrolled courses, while 25% did not.

Pie chart depicting required textbook format by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

In the 2024-25 academic year, 29% of courses offered a textbook exclusively in a digital format, while 10% provided only print versions. The majority, at 61%, offered the textbook in both print and digital formats. However, it is important to note that while faculty often choose the specific textbook, they may have less direct control over the formats available. Publishers often provide the textbooks to the institutional bookstores and students directly in both formats. Additionally, the faculty are reporting how the textbook was officially offered, not necessarily the formats students preferred, used, purchased, or found.

Bar graph depicting required textbook format by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

In the 2024-25 academic year, the trend of offering textbooks in various formats continued its evolution. Ten percent of courses offered a textbook exclusively in print format, a slight increase from the previous year's 8%, but lower than earlier figures. In comparison, 29% of courses offered textbooks as digital-only, a similar level to that seen in previous years.

The majority, at 61%, provided textbooks in both print and digital formats. This marks a decline from 71% in 2023-24, yet it remains the most common option for faculty. In the post-pandemic years, offering both formats has consistently been prevalent, with figures ranging between 50% to 71% over recent years.

Looking at past trends, there was a notable decline in courses that only offered print textbooks—from nearly one-fifth (19%) in 2021-22 to 10% in 2024-25. This represents a clear shift toward adopting digital formats over time, while still allowing some traditional print options for faculty and students.

Perspectives on Digital versus Print

Faculty hold nuanced views on format preferences, acknowledging benefits to both print and digital materials for students.

“I think reference books should be in print, and that includes textbooks. People skim what is read online. The students focus better in print, and they can mark up the book and make marginal notes, which help retention."

“The textbook for my course is only $25 to purchase (either print or digital) and less than that to rent, so I'm lucky that most of my students do obtain the textbook... However, I find myself returning to printed handouts more and more in class in order to force students to close their laptops and put down their phones... I love technology! But I also need my students to pay attention and learn while they are in class."

In the 2024-25 academic year, faculty responses about digital materials offering more flexibility for students showed some shifts in agreement compared to previous years. Specifically, 35% of faculty "agree" with the statement, while a slightly higher percentage (42%) "somewhat agree," totaling 77% with positive views on the flexibility digital formats provide.

Bar graph depicting agreement with the statement Digital materials provide greater flexibility for students by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

Additionally, 15% of the faculty indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with this statement, and those expressing disagreement comprised 8%, with 6% choosing "somewhat disagree" and 2% selecting "disagree."

Bar graph depicting agreement with the statement Digital materials provide greater flexibility for students by higher education faculty across several years

This represents a slight change from earlier figures but maintains the general consensus that digital materials offer greater flexibility.

Approximately three-quarters of faculty members either "agreed" or "somewhat agreed" that digital materials provide more flexibility for students, showing a strong belief in their flexibility. This belief has been strengthening over time, with the proportion of faculty reporting that they "Agree" increasing by 6% from earlier periods, suggesting that more faculty members are recognizing and experiencing the benefits of digital materials for their students.

Overall, while there has been a modest recent decrease in total agreement this year, the trend over several years shows increasing recognition among faculty of the advantages offered by digital formats.

Bar graph depicting agreement with the statement Students learn better from print materials than they do digital material by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

In the 2024-25 academic year, faculty expressed their opinions on whether students learn better from print versus digital materials. Overall, 17% of faculty "agree" with the statement that students learn better from print materials, while a further 25% "somewhat agree," totaling 42% who express a preference for print.

A notable portion of faculty remains neutral on this issue; 44% selected "neither agree nor disagree." Meanwhile, those expressing disagreement with the statement are 14%, with 10% choosing "somewhat disagree" and 4% selecting "disagree."

Bar graph depicting agreement with the statement Students learn better from print materials than they do digital materials by higher education faculty across several years

Overall agreement with the statement has remained consistent year over year, hovering around 41-44% since 2018-19. However, there was a notable exception of a large drop to 33% immediately following the pandemic, possibly indicating optimism about the widespread adoption of new digital materials at that time.

In the most recent academic year, 2024-25, faculty agreement with the statement showed a modest increase in those who "agree" outright. Specifically, the percentage of faculty who fully agreed rose to 17%, marking a gradual upward trend over recent years, from a low point of 8% in 2019-20.

Faculty commentary on the subject of print versus digital materials tends to revolve around price: comments lamented the lack of affordable textbooks, with high prices being a compelling reason to use digital texts. And while digital texts aren't explicitly called out as inferior, comments suggest that distraction, information retention, and ownership (versus renting) are reasons to stick to print.

Curricula Satisfaction

Faculty report overall positive satisfaction with their current curricula materials, although grades vary depending on specific criteria, format, or publisher.

“I choose all required readings for students so I'm selecting those that I'm generally happy with that have no cost for students."

"While content is complete and accurate the text is not very "readable" for non-majors."

"I really have no problem with our textbook. We have been using the various editions of this textbook since 2012 and as a department we have been happy with it throughout."

This year’s survey asked faculty to assess their satisfaction with their course curricula for their largest enrollment class across multiple metrics, using a 0-100 scale. Two metrics (accuracy and scope) specifically related to the content of the curricula. A third metric asked about the supplemental instructor materials included in many textbook packages, while the fourth asked faculty to rate their satisfaction with the cost to students for the curricula. Finally, faculty provided an overall rating for the curricula.

The average overall rating for curricula was 80%, showing that higher education faculty are generally satisfied with their curricula.

Faculty were asked to rate their curricula across several metrics. The respondents gave an average rating of 86% for their curricula's accuracy and 80% for their scope and coverage. They rated their curricula's included materials at 73%, while the average rating for the curricula's cost to students was 71%.

Bar graph depicting faculty grading for curricula across various metrics by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

Examining the distribution of faculty grades for their curriculum materials reveals more details. All metrics showed a range of grades, from As to failing. The faculty respondents considered their curriculum's accuracy the best scores, with 58% awarding it an A. The cost to students was the least well regarded, with 33% of respondents assigning an F. The included materials had the most divided grades, possibly reflecting the variety of products, with 35% earning an A and 26% an F.

AI-generated content may be incorrect.">

When comparing curricula satisfaction by format, digital materials receive slightly higher grades than print. Faculty using print-only textbooks for their course gave an average rating of 76%. Faculty with digital-only or both formats had average rating of 80% and 79%, respectively.

Faculty respondents generally gave positive and similar average ratings for curricula across publishers. The "Big Three" (Cengage, McGraw, and Pearson), named as they combined encompass the majority of the textbook market, received 78%, open educational resources (OER) curricula had an average rating of 79%, while other commercial publishers were rated slightly higher at 80%.

Bar graph depicting faculty grading for overall curricula across various publishers by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

There are greater differences when examining the proportions of grades assigned to materials by publishers. While the "Big Three" publishers received the highest average ratings, OER received the most A grades, at 41%. The Big Three received the most F ratings at 15%, just one percentage point higher than OER's 14%. All other commercial publishers ranked between the two for A grades but had slightly fewer failing ratings at 12%.

According to the open-ended comments, faculty appreciate value. The respondents' opinions centered on appreciation for educational resources that are affordable, from inexpensive textbooks to free or low-cost alternative materials that help reduce the financial burden that students face. This assumes that faculty can find content that meet their needs: some responses lament outdated textbooks, dense, inflexible materials, or (once again) high costs. Ancillary materials (videos, online homework components, problem / example sets, etc.) are also highly prized, as limited or non-existent instructor resources can make it difficult to grade and teach effectively.

OER Awareness

Three in five faculty are aware of OER, and faculty awareness of OER showed a small rebound with a slight increase this year.

“I love this concept especially to help mitigate rising costs of education for our students! It does take more time to sort through and incorporate so I personally have had a slower roll-out of OER materials than I would like."

“I like the concept. The materials I have found tend to be shoddy. Superficially okay but with no depth."

“I'm ALL for it. It makes education more accessible."

“Some OER materials are designed well and others are not very good. You have to evaluate them just like you evaluate textbooks."

Open educational resources (OER) are typically available in a digital format, either free or at very low cost. Unlike commercially published materials, OER materials are available under an open license, most often a Creative Commons license, which allows users to revise and redistribute them. Many OER materials are created and shared by educators and peers, although there are also OER publishers.

Measuring the awareness and use of OER materials isn't straightforward. Many educators will adopt materials without fully understanding the licensing details, often misunderstanding what makes OER unique. Also, some may think “open" and "free" mean the same, assuming all free resources are OER.

To gauge awareness of OER, reports in this series have used a consistent question, which has proven to have the best balance in differentiating among the varying levels of awareness without confusing those with no prior knowledge of the concept. The specific wording has remained consistent to enable comparisons across years with earlier surveys. Additionally, the measure of OER awareness combines responses to Creative Commons licensing and OER awareness questions to ensure high-quality results.

Bar graph depicting awareness of copyright licensing by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

Faculty awareness varies by the type of licensing. Faculty are most aware of copyright, with 94% at any level of awareness, a slight decrease from 96% during the 2023-24 academic year. That's followed by awareness of public domain at 89%, similar to 90% in 2023-24. Finally, awareness of Creative Commons licensing remained constant year-over-year, at 76%.

Pie chart depicting awareness levels of OER by higher education faculty for the 2024-25 academic year

In 2024-25, 59% of faculty were aware of OER at any level. Eleven percent were “somewhat aware,” 25% were “aware,” and 23% were “very aware.” For faculty who were unaware, 11% reported that they had “heard of” OER, indicating they have some name recognition but no further familiarity. Thirty percent of faculty are unaware of OER.

Pie chart depicting awareness levels of OER by higher education faculty across several years

For eight consecutive years, beginning in 2014-15, OER awareness increased year over year. The overall level of awareness more than doubled from 27% to a peak of 64% in 2022-23. The growth stemmed from both increases in "aware" and "very aware" categories. The 2023-24 academic year was the first decrease in awareness, as it fell 8% to 56%.

Faculty awareness of OER in 2024-25 shows a slight rebound, with 23% of faculty reporting they are “very aware” of OER, up from 21% in 2023-24, although still below 29% in 2022-23. While the “very aware” category has decreased since 2022-23, the 2024-25 data indicate a modest recovery. The “aware” and “somewhat aware” categories remain relatively stable at 25% and 11%, respectively, reflecting consistent engagement with OER concepts over the past three years.

OER Use

Evidence of growing acceptance of OER as usage increased, with one-third of faculty using OER as required materials in their classrooms.

“I think OER can be great - depending on the course and subject."

“I feel good saving students money."

“The quality of materials varies greatly. I am open to their use but they have to align with my teaching goals."

“I have colleagues who would rather use a [commercial] textbook. I dread the day that I am outvoted."

“I honestly would love to switch to an OER but I have yet to find one that is remotely close to the quality of publisher books."

Bar graph depicting use of OER as required or supplemental materials by faculty over several academic year

In 2024-25, 49% of faculty report using OER materials in at least one of their courses, up from 41% in the 2023-24 academic year. These uses can include any type of classroom material, such as textbooks, homework, interactive activities, and more. These responses are by individual faculty, not by course: for this question, faculty can teach multiple courses and use OER in only one, or across all of them.

One-third of faculty report using OER as a required material in their courses, an increase from 26% in 2024-25. Fifteen percent of faculty now use OER as both supplemental and required materials, up from 10% in 2023-24.

Bar graph depicting use of OER as required materials by faculty over several academic years

Faculty use of OER as required course materials has increased 7% year over year. This reverses the slight decline observed in 2023-24 and marks the highest level recorded to date.

While the comments from faculty respondents feature enthusiasm for the concept of OER, there are significant challenges and concerns that provide a barrier to adoption. The idea that "you get what you pay for" was a recurring refrain in the comments, reflected in concerns about the legitimacy and value of OER materials.

That said, the respondents value the accessibility, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, customization, and collaboration aspects of OER, with several commentors expressing enthusiasm for contributing their own time and / or resources to support OER development and dissemination.

Summary

These survey results highlight a gradual return to traditional face-to-face instruction, in conjunction with a significant presence of blended and digital learning models. These shifts underscore a post-pandemic trend toward hybrid models, balancing in-person benefits with the flexibility of digital tools.

Faculty often teach multiple courses with varying formats, reflecting institutional adaptations to diverse student needs and logistical constraints. While face-to-face instruction remains dominant, the integration of digital and blended models continues to expand, alongside growing OER adoption. However, sustaining high levels of OER awareness and addressing disparities in resource access remain critical challenges for higher education institutions aiming to meet the needs of diverse learners.

Textbook formats also show a clear transition toward digital accessibility. Faculty recognize the flexibility of digital materials, and outright preferences for print materials have waned, alongside a growth in neutrality in learning preferences. These trends indicate a broader acceptance of digital tools, though concerns about student learning outcomes persist.

Finally, OER awareness and use have also advanced, with faculty’s use of OER as required course materials reaching an all-time high. Faculty cite OER’s cost-effectiveness and adaptability as key advantages, though the broader adoption of OER faces hurdles in institutional support and educator familiarity. The findings highlight the need for ongoing investment in training, infrastructure, and policy frameworks to support equitable and effective educational practices.

Next Steps

This project aims to track and follow the trends of digital adoption and perceptions in U.S. higher education. The choice to use a specific textbook in a specific format is often not an isolated decision and may be affected by many other factors outside the faculty's preference for their own classrooms. Department policies, student preferences, institutional guidelines, state laws, material costs, and publisher reputation may all play a role. Therefore, this project will continue to track the specific use and adoption of digital and OER textbooks within the bigger picture.

This report represents just a portion of the survey results. Additional reports, research briefs, and presentations will be released on other topics in the survey. Some planned topics includes opinions from faculty and administrators on AI, professional development, and student perspectives. All future publications will be available on our website: bayviewanalytics.com/OER.

Methodology

This survey was conducted in April 2024, with a total of 3,447 faculty responses. The respondents come from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.

The data for this report comes from survey results using a national sample of teaching faculty. The sample is representative of the broad range of teaching faculty in U.S. higher education. The sample selection process was multi-stage. The process began by obtaining data from several commercial list sources that were the combined with a faculty panel assembled by Bay View Analytics. The first step selected all faculty who taught at least one course. Individuals were then randomly selected from the master list in proportion to the number contained in each Carnegie Classification, to produce a second-stage selection of teaching faculty and department chairpersons. The resulting lists were checked against opt-out lists, as well as for non-functioning email addresses.

The respondents represent the full range of higher education institutions (two-year, four-year, all Carnegie classifications, and public, private nonprofit, and for-profit) and the complete range of faculty (full- and part-time, tenured or not, and all disciplines). Respondents represent 1,415 different institutions.

Institutional descriptive data come from the National Center for Educational Statistics’ IPEDS database.[1] After the data were compiled and merged with the IPEDS database, respondents and nonrespondents were compared to ensure that the survey results reflected the characteristics of the entire population of faculty. The responses were compared for 35 unique categories based on the 2015 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

As noted in our previous reports, the specific wording of questions is critical in measuring the level of OER awareness. The language for this report (provided below) matches that used in previous reports in this series. It was found to have the best balance in differentiating amongst different levels of awareness, while avoiding leading those with no prior knowledge of the concept.

How aware are you of Open Educational Resources (OER)? OER is defined as "teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others." Unlike traditionally copyrighted material, these resources are available for "open" use, which means users can edit, modify, customize, and share them.
I am not aware of OER
I have heard of OER, but don't know much about them
I am somewhat aware of OER but I am not sure how they can be used
I am aware of OER and some of their use cases
I am very aware of OER and know how they can be used in the" classroom

This question may still slightly overstate the level of OER awareness, so we also ask a series of additional questions. Because licensing for remixing and reuse is central to the concept of OER, a question about the respondent’s awareness of different legal permissions was asked of all respondents before any questions about OER awareness itself:

How aware are you of each of the following licensing mechanisms?

	Unaware	Somewhat Aware	Aware	Very Aware
Public Domain
Copyright
Creative Commons

By combining the responses from the OER awareness question with those of the licensing questions, a combined index of awareness is constructed. An identical process was used in previous reports in this series, to permit year-over-year comparisons and trend analysis.

Definitions

This study explores how faculty members select and use the educational materials used in their courses. The primary sample represents all teaching faculty across all types of degree-granting higher education institutions in the United States. The most common educational material employed in a course is the required textbook: faculty members typically choose one or more books that all students use throughout the course. Faculty also employ a wide range of other materials — some optional, others required for all students. This study focuses on the required materials, using the following definition:

Items listed in the course syllabus as required for all students, either acquired on their own or provided to all students through a materials fee; examples include printed or digital textbooks, other course-complete printed (course pack) or digital materials, or materials such as laboratory supplies.

In addition to examining the overall resource selection process, this study also explores the class of materials classified as Open Educational Resources (OER). The definition presented to the respondents in the study’s questionnaire comes from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation:

OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge.[2]

An essential aspect of examining the use of educational resources is the licensing status of such materials: who owns the rights to use and distribute the material, and does the faculty member have the right to modify, reuse, or redistribute said content? The legal mechanism that faculty are most familiar with is that of copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office defines copyright as:

A form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for "original works of authorship", including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. "Copyright" literally means the right to copy but has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to copyright owners for protection of their work. … Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.[3]

Of particular interest for this study is the copyright status of the textual material (including textbooks) that faculty select as required materials for their courses.

Copyright owners have the right to control the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive payment for that reproduction. An author may grant or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording companies.[4]

Not all material is copyrighted. Some content may be ineligible for copyright, copyrights may have expired, or authors may have dedicated their content to the public domain (e.g., using Creative Commons public domain dedication[5]).

Public domain is a designation for content that is not protected by any copyright law or other restriction and may be freely copied, shared, altered, and republished by anyone. The designation means, essentially, that the content belongs to the community at large.[6]

Materials can also be released under a Creative Commons license, which is not an alternative to copyright, but rather a modification of the traditional copyright license that grants some rights to the public.

The Creative Commons (CC) open licenses give everyone from individual authors to governments and institutions a simple, standardized way to grant copyright permissions to their creative work. CC licenses allow creators to retain copyright while allowing others to copy, distribute, and make some uses of their work per the terms of the license. CC licenses ensure authors get credit (attribution) for their work, work globally, and last as long as applicable copyright lasts. CC licenses do not affect freedoms (e.g., fair use rights) that the law grants to users of creative works otherwise protected by copyright.[7]

The most common way to openly license copyrighted education materials — making them OER — is to add a Creative Commons (CC) license to the educational resource. CC licenses are standardized, free-to-use, open copyright licenses.[8]

Appendix Tables

In-Person and Remote Teaching

Faculty: Teaching Modality (Select All)
Other	1%
Blended or Hybrid	23%
Fully online	48%
Fully face-to-face	72%

Faculty: Number of Teaching Modalities
One	65%
Two	27%
Three	8%

Faculty: Teaching Modality by Year
	2018-19	2019-20	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25
Fully online	34%	71%	49%	39%	40%	48%
Blended or Hybrid	29%	30%	33%	26%	23%	23%
Fully face-to-face	96%	14%	58%	72%	75%	72%

Textbook Formats

Faculty: Required Textbook in Class
Required textbook	75%
No required textbook	25%

Faculty: Required Textbook Format
Print-only	10%
Both formats	61%
Digital-only	29%

Faculty: Textbook Format by Year
	2024-25	2023-24	2022-23	2021-22
Print-Only	10%	8%	12%	19%
Both	61%	64%	71%	50%
Digital-Only	29%	28%	17%	31%

Perception of Digital versus Print

Faculty: Agreement with statements
	Students learn better from print materials than they do from digital	Digital materials provide greater flexibility for students
Agree	17%	35%
Somewhat agree	25%	42%
Neither agree nor disagree	44%	15%
Somewhat disagree	10%	6%
Disagree	4%	2%

Faculty: Agreement with statement by Year
Students learn better from print materials than they do from digital
	2018-19	2019-20	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25
Agree	19%	8%	11%	15%	15%	17%
Somewhat agree	25%	35%	22%	26%	26%	25%

Faculty: Agreement with statement by Year
Digital materials provide greater flexibility for students
	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25
Agree	24%	29%	36%	35%
Somewhat agree	50%	44%	43%	42%

Curricula Satisfaction

Faculty: Average Rating for Curricula
Overall	80%
Included Materials	73%
Accuracy	86%
Scope and coverage	80%
Cost to student	71%

Faculty: Average Rating for Curricula
	A	B	C	D	F
Overall	39%	24%	15%	9%	13%
Included Materials	35%	19%	13%	7%	26%
Accuracy	58%	21%	10%	4%	7%
Scope and coverage	37%	23%	14%	8%	13%
Cost to student	37%	12%	11%	7%	33%

Faculty: Average Rating for Curricula by Format
Digital-only	80%
Both formats	79%
Print-only	76%

Faculty: Average Rating for Publisher Group
	A	B	C	D	F
OER	41%	24%	15%	6%	14%
Other Commercial	36%	27%	15%	10%	12%
Big Three	35%	24%	18%	9%	15%

OER and Licensing Awareness

Faculty: Awareness of Licensing
	Very Aware	Aware	Somewhat Aware	Unaware
Creative Commons	24%	28%	24%	24%
Public Domain	31%	36%	22%	11%
Copyright	38%	40%	16%	6%

Faculty: OER Awareness
I am very aware of OER and know how they can be used in the classroom	23%
I am aware of OER and some of their use cases	25%
I am somewhat aware of OER but I am not sure how they can be used	11%
I have heard of OER, but don't know much about them	11%
I am not aware of OER	30%

Faculty: OER Awareness by Year
	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25
Very Aware	5%	6%	8%	12%	14%	16%	23%	29%	21%	23%
Aware	12%	16%	17%	16%	17%	21%	23%	25%	24%	25%
Somewhat Aware	10%	12%	12%	11%	13%	13%	11%	10%	11%	11%