The principles, which address affordability of compulsory learning materials, student agency, and support for open resources and platforms, can be read starting on Page 289 of UBC-V Senate May 15, 2019 Meeting Materials packet and have also been reproduced below, along with FAQ’s.
UBC Principles for Digital Learning Materials Used for Assessment
The following principles address compulsory, non-tuition-related ancillary fees for access to learning materials as a condition of assessment in UBC courses. Currently, neither UBC, nor the B.C. Provincial Government, have regulations and/or policies in place to reduce or limit the cost of digital learning materials. However, both the Governments of Ontario and Alberta have placed restrictions on the cost and use of digital materials used for assessment purposes and the following principles have been informed by the guidelines and practices of institutions within those Provinces.Background
UBC is committed to academic freedom and recognizes that the use of digital learning materials and applications in UBC courses is based upon sound pedagogical practices that enhance student learning, experiences, and outcomes. The use of digital learning materials at UBC is widespread and includes the use of digital content, online discussion groups, classroom response systems, formative assessment tools such as online quizzes, electronic submissions of assignments and reports, fully online courses, and more.Instructors have an increasing choice of UBC-provided learning technologies, open educational resources (OER), and other digital learning materials which may be used for assessment activities. Third-party vendors are also increasingly creating and improving digital materials that are being used for assessment activities. For example, Macmillan Launchpad, which was used for marks by at least 13 UBC course sections in AY 2018-2019 Winter Term 2, includes a variety of pre-built and adaptive quiz tools, video assessment tools, pre-built modules, homework submission functionality, and more.
The use of assessed third-party vendor digital learning materials differ from traditional learning materials. When a course includes a required textbook, it is the content of text that is required and not the specific textbook. Thus, students have agency in deciding on how they may access that content. For example, students have many options for how they access traditional text resources including purchasing older or used versions, buying or using alternative texts, renting the digital version of the text, sharing a text with a classmate, or possibly accessing reserve copies at the UBC Library. According to the 2018 AMS Academic Experience Survey, 40 percent of UBC undergraduate respondents reported that they frequently or often used an outdated version of a textbook or other course resource to avoid paying for a more recent edition. Additionally 32 percent of undergraduate respondents reported they frequently or often went without a textbook or other course resource due to cost.
When the use of digital materials, which can only be accessed uniquely by each specific student, are required for course marks, this agency for how to access the course materials is removed. Packaging or bundling digital materials that are used for assessment with non-assessed texts also takes away the agency from students to choose how they purchase or access the non-assessed materials.
When an instructor chooses to use digital materials or platforms provided by UBC, the use of those materials are included within student tuition; however, when instructors choose third-party vendor tools for assessment activities, access and use of those materials may represent an additional student fee beyond tuition.
According to the 2018 Teaching Practices Survey, 20 percent of instructors of courses with enrolments over 200 students, 21 percent of instructors of first year courses, and 12 percent of all responding instructors expect their students to purchase access to digital learning resources other than a textbook. In academic year 2018-2019, it is estimated that at least 10,000 UBC students paid between $840,000 to $1.25 million in aggregate for access to digital materials and platforms that were required for assessment in their courses. As the publisher-provided digital materials improve and become easier to integrate with UBC’s platforms, it is expected that these numbers will greatly increase.
The following principles were developed in consultation with members of the AMS, CTLT, and UBC Bookstore, as well as the UBC Vancouver Senate Teaching and Learning Committee. They specifically address compulsory, non-tuition-related ancillary fees that students may be required to pay for access to digital learning materials and applications as a requirement for a course. They do not address materials not required as part of a course mark nor learning materials that become the property of the student and are retained beyond the completion of the course, such as textbooks, art supplies, software, hardware, or laboratory equipment.
Principles
-
Costs to Students
The costs of digital learning materials represent a real barrier to learning for students at UBC and it is recognized that the compulsory use of fee-based learning materials is financially burdensome for students. In principle, assessments in a course should be covered by tuition costs. In instances where there are pedagogical or logistical reasons for an instructor to choose third-party vendor materials for a portion of the assessment, the cost to students must not exceed $65 per three-credit course. -
Percentage of Course Marks
The compulsory use of fee-based learning materials as a percentage of a course mark can impact equitable and inclusive learning. In instances where there are pedagogical or logistical reasons for an instructor to choose third-party vendor materials for a portion of the assessment, the use of those materials must not exceed 20% of a course mark. -
Student Agency and Options
Students should have agency, options, and the ability to make informed decisions about compulsory non-tuition-related fees for learning materials. Students should know the full cost of all courses at the time of or, ideally, before registration. Additionally, students must always have the option to purchase access to compulsory assessment materials or components unbundled from non-assessed materials and textbooks. Where vendor-based digital learning materials are used, student data and privacy must be protected and the use of such materials must comply with BC FIPPA laws. -
Enhancement of Financial Support for Students for Learning Materials
Assessment activities are a core part of tuition and the compulsory use of fee-based learning materials may prove financially onerous at any cost and percentage of a course mark. UBC should enhance and improve the financial support it provides to students so that compulsory fees for access to third party assessment materials are not a barrier for students to be fully assessed for course marks. Where costs are known in advance, students can add these to their bursary applications. -
Institutional Support for Open Resources and Platforms
UBC should continue to support the development and use of a wide range of open educational resources, digital materials, and learning technologies that can be used free of additional fees for students. Academic freedom is a core tenet of UBC’s teaching and learning environment and UBC should continue to support, develop, and invest in digital learning materials and platforms that can support pedagogical best practices, enhancement of teaching and learning, and instructor freedom in how they teach without adding to the financial burdens of UBC students. In addition to licensing learning technologies such as Canvas, UBC should continue to invest in the development of open educational resources such as open textbooks, open tools, and open quiz and problem banks.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did you arrive at the $65 per three-credit course limit?
The limit was determined after conducting an environmental scan of peer institutions and existing provincial legislation, reviewing current costs of digital materials used for assessment, and the recognition that by setting a price cap, the costs of materials under the limit may be raised.
If more than one digital learning resource is required per course, does the limit change?
No. The $65 limit is currently a total cost for digital learning materials used in assessment per three credit course.
What if I teach a four-credit or two credit course?
The $65 limit applies to three credit-courses, which are the most common types of courses at UBC. For courses that have more or less credits, the amount would be pro-rated. For example, the limit for a four credit course would be $87 and a two credit course would be $43.
What if multiple courses are using the same digital materials?
If two three-credit courses are using the same materials, the cap would be $130 across the six-credits.
Why is there a limit for both the cost and the percentage of a course mark?
According to the 2018 AMS Academic Experience Survey, two-in-five UBC undergraduate and graduate students have been concerned about their financial ability to feed themselves during the previous year. Thus it is recognized that the compulsory costs of digital learning materials can be a financial burden for students even at the capped $65 amount. UBC is, and should be, supporting and developing a wide range of learning materials and technologies and should not be out-sourcing a significant component of assessment into third-party paid systems. The assessment percentage limit is largely in line with (though a little higher than) than what some Ontario institutions have mandated as the max.
Can courses go beyond the limits if instructors are able to directly negotiate free or discounted access for specific students facing financial hardship?
No. The provision of limited no- or low-cost alternatives, such when students can speak directly to instructors for discounted access codes, or when such materials can be accessed on limited terminals in specific locations such as the Library, is detrimental to the equity of learning experiences and may place unfair burdens on specific students. If students are offered and able to choose (without disclosing financial hardships) between alternative assessment schemes as options with non-fee based materials, then the use of those materials become non-compulsory and would not count towards a cap.
Does the $65 threshold create an endorsement for charging students for things that should be part of tuition?
In principle, the payment of tuition supports the cost of assessment. However, there may be pedagogical (e.g. the assessments are better than could be offered in Canvas) or logistical reasons (e.g. the class is 400 people and the assessment tool needs to scale) for an instructor to choose third-party vendor materials for a portion of the assessment. UBC should enhance both financial support for students as well as institutional support for open or UBC-hosted tools and materials so that students never have to choose between taking a mandatory grade reduction and paying for access a third-party system.
How can students be provided timely information about all compulsory fees related to a course?
Currently, in order to provide students timely information about costs related to learning materials, instructors must place their materials order, or inform the bookstore if they are using OER, several weeks before the start of term. The Bookstore then pushes that information to the Student Service Centre (SSC), which allows students to see costs at time of enrolment. UBC should invest in the development of processes, systems, and services that make compulsory fees transparent before enrolment. For example, providing historical fee data related to a course may provide additional information to students.
Do iClickers count towards the $65 limit?
No, this limit only applies to compulsory, non-tuition-related ancillary fees for digital materials that students are not able to own and retain. Students have a range of options when purchasing or accessing iClicker devices, including purchasing used iClickers hardware-based devices, sharing the device, or using an app-based version. However, alternative digital-only classroom response systems, such as TopHat, may fall under the the cap if students are required to purchase access to a digital service (i.e. they can’t share access or access a used version) and if the service is used for assessed activities.
