No-Cost/Low-Cost and OER Impact on Time-to-Credential: An Event History Modeling Study
Authors
Liliana Diaz Solodukhin
(Colorado Department of Higher Education)
Mike MacDonald
(JG Research & Evaluation)
Colleen Falkenstern
(Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE))
Patrick Lane
(Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE))
Kristal Jones
(JG Research)
Abstract
The study explores the efficacy of no-cost/low-cost (NCLC) programs on student credential completion and persistence. The study looked at student-level data between the fall 2014 and 2021 academic year at a community college in the West. A retrospective cohort design with multivariate logistic regression and survival analysis was used to investigate the influence of attempted NCLC on student completion. Findings indicate that students, across all demographic categories, who attempt NCLC credits increase their likelihood of graduation with a significant impact for older students. Our findings also indicate that student NCLC credits do not decrease time-to-completion compared to students who do not participate in NCLC credits. Students who participated in NCLC programs, however, graduated at a higher rate than those who did not participate. In this article, we provide recommendations for policy, practice, and research on the use of NCLC and its impact on student outcomes.
Diaz Solodukhin, L., MacDonald, M., Falkenstern, C., Lane, P. & Jones, K.,
(2025) “No-Cost/Low-Cost and OER Impact on Time-to-Credential: An Event History Modeling Study”,
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education 3(1),
130-148.
doi: https://doi.org/10.31274/joerhe.17772
Diaz Solodukhin,
L , MacDonald,
M , Falkenstern,
C , Lane,
P & Jones,
K.
(2025) 'No-Cost/Low-Cost and OER Impact on Time-to-Credential: An Event History Modeling Study',
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education.
3(1)
:130-148.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17772
Diaz Solodukhin,
L , MacDonald,
M , Falkenstern,
C , Lane,
P & Jones,
K.
No-Cost/Low-Cost and OER Impact on Time-to-Credential: An Event History Modeling Study. Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. 2025 1;
3(1)
:130-148.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17772
Diaz Solodukhin,
L MacDonald,
M Falkenstern,
C Lane,
P
& Jones,
K.
(2025, 1 10). No-Cost/Low-Cost and OER Impact on Time-to-Credential: An Event History Modeling Study.
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education
3(1)
:130-148.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17772
The article is not entirely within the journal's scope, as it cannot separate between the categories of OER, zero-cost, and low-cost materials and their impact on student success. Since some of the courses considered for this study may entail a cost for course materials, placing them within the context of open education is difficult. This limitation is addressed within the manuscript, but this may not be appropriate for a journal focusing on topics related to open education. The authors are correct in pointing out that there is not currently much literature on the role of low-cost resources in student persistence, success, and retention. Still, this particular research may not have a place for a journal dedicated to OER.
Organization
The article proceeds logically and follows the recommended structure of the journal. The manuscript does include more figures/tables than recommended; some may need to be moved to an appendix if accepted.
Methodology, Approach, Conclusions
The methodology and results sections of the paper are difficult to read. While in-depth descriptions of their analytical tools and equations are appreciated, the additional information is not particularly helpful for the average researcher. Few readers will use this resource to replicate the study using this information, so perhaps some of this information would be better suited to an appendix than the main text. The data collected, and its conclusions are interesting and important, but some of that gets lost in reporting on the details of how the data was collected.
Writing Style, References
The literature review section does not feel fully connected to the rest of the study. Two ideas are introduced- affordability and accountability, but most of the original research presented here does not comment on either of those aspects in the discussion or the conclusion. It seems like those things serve as more the impetus for conducting the study than the place in which the research should be situated. The idea of accountability especially is of interest, but the authors have not made connections to how their research is connected to this previous research.
Application
It's unclear how this research might inform the practice of others. It's helpful to know the connections established in their study, but again, the inability to know the difference between open, zero-cost, and low-cost does not add any nuance to the discussion.
What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?
It's clear the researchers have spent significant time collecting this data and working through their analyses. The rigor of their research design is commendable.
What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?
Overall, it's difficult to wade through the technical aspects of the study and get to the heart of the data. The difficulty in describing the research and its findings limits its use for other researchers. It could be improved by streamlining some of these sections to focus on more clear and concise ideas derived from the data.
Peer Review Ranking: Scope
not relevant
Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear
Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes
Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
appropriate
Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
not sound
Note: This review refers to round of peer
review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.
Open peer review from James Paradiso
Scope, Objectives, Content
The authors do a good job of explaining how this study was intended to look solely at the impact of OER, but because interested institutions were generally rolling OER into their NCLC designation (rather than having a marker specifically for OER), the researchers had to pivot. I think the article still fits within the scope of this journal because, as was mentioned in the study, the model and their findings will prove helpful for further studies that look at similar questions in the context of 'only' OER. Any work looking at the impact LCNC (including OER) has on student success (e.g., time-to-graduation) is extremely important to the progress of this field.
Organization
The article proceeds logically and follows the section guidelines in all areas except for "Figures and Supporting Information." The Section Guidelines state: "Up to four (4) figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, supporting information, and appendices may be supplied and should be embedded in the main body of the text. Additional items can be uploaded as supplementary electronic files e.g. survey instruments, data, etc." I counted 4 figures and 3 tables in the body of the text.
If only 4 must remain, I'd recommend keeping the figures and possibly covering the main points of the data in paragraph form and referencing the location of the full table for readers to view if desired.
Methodology, Approach, Conclusions
The methodology is sound (well-chosen, considering the research questions), and the inclusion of covariates allows for a more nuanced discussion of the findings.
Writing Style, References
The article is grammatically sound and concise with very well-developed ideas.
I was a little thrown off when reading the Influence of attempting NCLC credits on time-to-credential completion sub-section, though.
The first paragraph states the "Students attempting NCLC credits have a significantly lower 'hazard' or likelihood of graduating at any given time...." but when controlling for 'age,' the likelihood of graduating at any given time was higher compared to those who didn't attempt NCLC credits. Maybe a transition like 'however' placed before "Our cox proportional hazards models...." might help signal to the reader that there is a juxtaposition.
I had to spend a bit of time re-reading this section to make sure I was understanding it as intended. I think some of the confusion was due to a lack of idea coherence (which could be helped with transition words or clearer separation between similar / different results), but the phrase "at any given time" was also something I had to stop and think about, as I wasn't immediately sure how to interpret it. I'd consider rewording that phrase and possibly reworking the section slightly to make the ideas flow more naturally for someone who hasn't spent hours thinking about the data.
Application
The article discusses graduation rates and time-to-graduation—two very important metrics for higher education institutions (and their funding). I am not sure how easy or practical it will be to replicate the study (for the general reader-base), but that does not take away from the importance of this work in the broader sense. The key will be to share the findings with the right audiences (post-publication).
The authors might include a practical step-by-step guide, diagram, or tips sheet on how to investigate any of the recommended items mentioned in the Conclusion. This would greatly facilitate 'next steps' for the many readers who are practitioners by trade.
What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?
This study has a clever research design and adds to an under-researched area in the field. It also provides solid guidance, especially for those working at the system- or institutional-level. The findings are compelling and will hopefully encourage others to continue investigating these and related research questions that add to the efficacy of OER (and affordability initiatives) as it relates to student success.
What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?
The article could have brought the message home more closely for non-administrative practitioners (e.g., teachers, instructional designers, librarians, et al.), as these are often the ones on the ground making the work happen. A single article can't (and arguably shouldn't) be all things for all people, but having an 'applied' or 'in action' component could go a long way—even for the readers who work as administrators (for awareness if nothing more).
For example, faculty often discuss course materials options with librarians, so how might they support this effort, considering the evidence shown? Similarly, for instructors and instructional designers, an NCLC course (especially one using OER) does not run successfully simply because a new ISBN was submitted to the bookstore. A course redesign often accompanies materials changes like these— involving a considerable amount of (invisible) labor—that is not factored into administrators' or policymakers' top-down plan to operationalize NCLC or OER programs at state or institutional levels.
Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant
Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear
Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes
Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
appropriate
Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
sound
Note: This review refers to round of peer
review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.
<p>Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.</p>
