Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Examining Multiple Layers of Course Materials Cost: Experiences of Private College Students Cover

Examining Multiple Layers of Course Materials Cost: Experiences of Private College Students

Open Access
|Apr 2025

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Descriptive and inferential statistics of course materials cost measures by Pell grant recipient status.

TOTAL M(SD)PELL-GRANT RECIPIENTS M(SD)NON-PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS M(SD)F STATISTICp VALUE
Importance of course materials cost when registering for courses (1–5)3.46(1.15)3.76(1.05)3.32(1.17)9.85.002
Minutes searching for money saving options on course materials61.65(54.01)67.79(72.75)58.65(41.84)1.76.19
Cost of course materials per semester277.78(189.17)$271.04(187.79)$281.00(190.21).18.67
Stress of the cost of materials (1–10)6.32(2.36)6.77(2.22)6.10(2.40)5.37.02
Figure 1

Bar graph of the importance of course materials costs for selecting courses by Pell grant recipient status.

Note: Error bars are +1/–1 standard error.

Figure 2

Bar graph of minutes searching for lower cost options for course materials by Pell grant recipient status.

Note: Error bars are +1/–1 standard error.

Figure 3

Bar graph of the dollars spent on course materials per semester by Pell grant recipient status.

Note: Error bars are +1/–1 standard error.

Figure 4

Bar graph of the stress due to the cost of course materials by Pell grant recipient status.

Note: Error bars are +1/–1 standard error.

Table 2

Descriptive and inferential statistics of dichotomous measures by Pell grant recipient status.

TOTALPELL-GRANT RECIPIENTSNON-PELL GRANT RECIPIENTSPEARSON CHI-SQUAREp VALUE
Ever search for cost-saving options for course materials93.7%94.8%93.2%.61.74
Ever intentionally select a course with no or low cost materials32.9%38.1%30.4%1.83.40
Used course marking11.7%16.9%9.4%5.18.08
Plan to use course marking in the future53.5%58.8%50.9%2.40.30
Figure 5

Bar graphs of percentage agreement with yes/no response measures by Pell Grant recipient status.

Note: No error bars due to frequency data.

Table 3

Reasons why course marking was not used.

TOTALPELL RECIPIENTSNON-PELL RECIPIENTS
Wasn’t aware of the filter71.9%69.5%71.6%
Didn’t understand how to use the filter4.3%4.3%4.3%
Not concerned about the cost of materials9.1%8.6%9.4%
Already knew the classes needed45.6%33.2%50.9%
Other (example responses)7.5%5.8%
“If the classes are required for graduation, there is no point in looking for classes with low cost or inexpensive textbooks.”
“My required courses did not offer low cost materials.”
8.2%
“The classes I needed were not zero cost.”
“College registered for me.”

[i] Note: Students could select multiple options. Totals may add up to more than 100%.

Language: English
Page range: 9 - 20
Submitted on: Sep 21, 2024
Accepted on: Nov 10, 2024
Published on: Apr 15, 2025
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2025 Virginia Clinton-Lisell, Lindsey Gwozdz, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.