case studies in open educational resources

Open Educational Resources (OER)

• What are OER?
• Evaluate OER
• Case Studies
• Library Resources
• Further Reading
• Contact a Librarian

Teaching with OER Case Studies

Here is a list of OER case studies that can be used for instruction. The sheet is organized by discipline and resource type. We have also featured resources from USC libraries and other types of resources. 

OER Case Studies and Other Sources

• << Previous: Create OER
• Next: USC & OER >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 12:07 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/oer

Open Educational Resources

• Make Your Class Affordable
• Open Textbooks
• Evaluating Content
• Open Pedagogy

Open Case Studies

Open and freely available case studies, open access journals featuring case studies.

• Create Your Own OER

Open Case Studies can be valuable supplemental resources for your course content. Most Creative Commons licensed case studies can be incorporated directly into other OER for seamless reading.

• LearningEdge Case Studies LearningEdge is a collection of teaching case studies and simulations developed by MIT Sloan faculty and students.
• Open Case Studies at UBC These open case studies were created by faculty and students at the University of British Columbia. While many of these case studies focus on sustainability, they feature a broad range of topics across disciplines.
• Oikos Free Case Collection Oikos provides peer-reviewed, Creative Commons licensed case studies on sustainability, management, entrepreneurship, and finance.
• Arthur Andersen Case Studies in Business Ethics This collection includes 85 mini-cases and 5 major cases. See additional information on the website for usage information.

There are a number of open access journals featuring case studies across many disciplines. This list is not exhaustive. You may be able to locate additional case studies within OA journals by searching the Directory of Open Access Journals . 

• Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis While this title was discontinued in 2018, the archive contains five years of case studies on engineering failures.
• Journal of Business Cases and Applications This OA journal publishes applied business cases and classroom exercises for business instructors.
• Journal of Information Systems Education JISE is a peer-reviewed journal that offers, alongside other content, case studies on information systems in education, including curriculum, course materials, learning projects, and more.
• Mathematics-in-Industry Case Studies This journal provides access to case studies written by mathematicians working on industry problems.
• Case Studies in Construction Materials This journal offers short case studies on construction materials and projects.
• << Previous: Open Pedagogy
• Next: Create Your Own OER >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 9:23 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.sc.edu/OER

Open Educational Resources: Case Studies and Community College OER

• OER by Subject
• OER and Equity
• How Can the Library Help?
• Searching for OER
• Adopting and Creating OER
• Creative Commons
• Case Studies and Community College OER
• OER Professional Development
• OER in Action at Madison College
• Open Education Week 2024
• Madison College OER Grants
• OER Academy

Case Studies

Case Studies of Open Education Resource (OER) development and adoption at universities and community colleges in the United States, Canada, England, and around the globe.

• Adopting OER: A Case Study of Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Innovation
• Broward College Online Case Study: Diving into Open Educational Resources
• Maricopa Millions Case Study: Saving Students 5 Million over 5 Years
• More case studies can be found on the Creative Commons wiki
• Moving to Open Educational Resources at Athabasca University: A Case Study
• The National STEM Consortium: TAACCCT Grant Case Study
• Northern Virginia Community College’s OER-based General Education Certificate
• Open Textbook Authorship Case Study of Introduction to Theater

Selected US Community Colleges OER

• Anne Arundel Community College
• Austin Community College District
• Bristol (MA) Community College
• Delta College
• Houston Community College
• Kirkwood (IA) Community College
• Lane Community College
• Lansing Community College
• Maricopa Community Colleges
• Montgomery College
• Northern Virginia Community College
• Northwestern Michigan College
• Open Oregon
• Portland Community College
• Scottsdale Community College
• Spokane Community College
• Tidewater Community College
• Washtenaw Community College

Research on Efficacy of Open Textbook Adoption

• A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of postsecondary students
• Mainstreaming Open Textbooks: Educator Perspectives on the Impact of OpenStax College Open Textbooks
• OER Research Collection
• Community College Consortium for OER

Attribution

• << Previous: Creative Commons
• Next: OER Professional Development >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.madisoncollege.edu/OER

1701 Wright Street | Madison, Wisconsin 53704 | Libraries: 608.246.6640 | Student Achievement Centers: 608.246.6125 | College Info: 608.246.6100

• Case Studies
• Teaching Guide
• Using the Open Case Studies Website
• Using the UBC Wiki

Open Educational Resources

• Case Implementation
• Get Involved
• Process Documentation

The open case studies on this site are open educational resources, or OER. They are openly licensed, which means they carry specific licenses that allow you to reuse them in particular ways. In addition, because the UBC Wiki is a publicly-viewable website, there are copyright restrictions on what can be uploaded to the wiki and added to the case studies. This guide is designed to explain these and related topics.

According to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation , Open Educational Resources 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."

Thus, OER are any teaching and learning materials that are made available to others to use without cost, and with an open license that allows them to reuse, revise and redistribute them. They can be anything from syllabi, lecture notes, presentation slides, videos, podcasts, assigned readings, instructions for doing various kinds of assignments, and more. Many OER are resources that instructors are already using for their courses that they make available for others to revise and reuse. Sometimes students create OER as part of their work in courses.

The case studies on this website are open educational resources, but note that they may have varying open licenses on them that provide different levels of permissions. See the next section for an explanation of open licenses.

Open licenses

When an author creates a work, Canadian law automatically grants them full "copyright" over their work. This means that nobody may copy their work or make changes to it, except with the author’s express permission, or in accordance with the user rights granted by the Copyright Act (e.g., fair dealing ). Put another way, if you want to use a work in way that doesn’t qualify as a user right, you can only use the work as permitted by the copyright owner. The granting of permission is referred to as "licensing." Some copyright holders restrict all rights to their work, and so you have to ask their permission to use their work. Others, however, proactively offer their work to the public on standard terms that allow anyone to use their work so long as certain terms and restrictions are complied with.

An open license is one which grants permission to access, re-use and redistribute a work with few or no restrictions. These types of licenses are generally developed under the 5Rs to allow users to do the following:

• Retain - the right to make, own, and control copies of the content (e.g., download, duplicate, store, and manage)
• Reuse - the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video)
• Revise - the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
• Remix - the right to combine the original or revised content with other material to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
• Redistribute - the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend)

Most open licenses allow for content to be used, modified and built upon, but some licenses provide more permissions on how the work may be reused than others. The type of permissions given to a user of the openly licensed item depends on the creator and the license they have assigned to their work. The benefit of open licenses are they allow the creator to select the permissions and restrictions according to how they would like their content used.

Creative Commons Licenses

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization whose mandate is to make it easier for creators to share their work and/or build upon the works of others consistent with the rules of copyright. They have created standard, easy to use and understand copyright licenses that anybody can apply to their work to allow others to share, remix, or use the work without having to contact the copyright owner to ask for permission. Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative or exception to copyright, they are one way for copyright owners to distribute their work within the copyright framework.

There are several Creative Commons licenses, each with a different level of use restrictions. Please see here for a list of CC licenses (an overview is provided below).

If you want more information about Creative Commons, the licenses, or how you can use CC-licensed materials, the Creative Commons FAQ is a good resource.

Understanding the Different Creative Commons Licenses

Creative Commons offers six different licenses that allow copyright holders to apply different restrictions to how their work may be reused. When using a specific CC-licensed work, it is important to pay attention to the CC license and its restrictions. All Creative Commons licenses require attribution. The specific types of Creative Commons licenses are:

License Text and Icons by Creative Commons Organization and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License .

The following infographic provides an overview of the different license and their requirements:

Licenses on these case studies

The case studies have the Creative Commons Attribution license (4.0) , which means that anyone can use them for any purpose, so long as the original creators are attributed. Because these case studies are collaboratively created and revised by both faculty and students, you may attribute the original "author" as the UBC Open Case Studies, giving this website as the source.

Just because something is available online doesn't mean you have permission to re-use it by posting it on another website. The creator must have given permission for the work to be re-used (or revised, if you want to change it), which can be done by an open license. Another alternative is to find works in the public domain, though determining what is in the public domain can be tricky--see the UBC Copyright guide on public domain works.

Where to find openly-licensed media

• Open Education Research Guide - a curated list of openly licensed resources including, open textbooks, open journals, and multimedia resources.
• Finding & Using Creative Commons Media - UBC - a curated list of sources for openly licensed resources, images, music, video, etc. which you can embed - with attribution- in any resource you create.
• Image sources: public domain and Creative Commons resources - a curated list of places to find openly-licensed images
• Archive.org
• Wikimedia Commons

How to attribute openly-licensed media

Using CC licensed work requires you to attribute (or acknowledge) the original author of the photos, videos and other open resources you may use in the course of your learning. Here are examples of good (and not so good) practices for attribution:

• Best practices for attribution
• Purdue OWL's online guides to citing electronic sources .

BTC Library

• Library/SSC Hours
• Library Account: Check Due Dates
• Contact the Library

Books, Articles and More

• Catalog Search: Find Books and eBooks
• Databases A-Z: Find Articles
• Interlibrary Loan: Borrow from other Libraries
• Find Articles
• Access Online Library Resources
• Cite Your Sources

Help and Resources

• Library Guides: Program and Class Resources
• Library and Student Success Center FAQ
• Library Tutorials
• Research Help in Person and Online

Loaner Equipment

• Borrow Equipment
• Returning Equipment
• Equipment FAQ

Study Spaces

• Book a Study Room
• Student Success Center Resources: Printing & More

Faculty Services

• Library Information Literacy Instruction
• Affordable Course Materials: OER Guide
• Curriculum Reserve
• Purchase Recommendation

Tutoring Appointments and Walk-Ins

• Learning Center Walk-In Schedule
• Learning Center Virtual Schedule
• Math Center Tutoring Appointment
• Writing Support Tutoring Appointment
• Research Assistance Appointment with the Librarian
• Tutoring Options

Writing Support

• Writing Resources
• Writing Support Dropbox
• Library and Student Success Events
• Learning Center Events

Contact and Location

• Contact Tutors in the Learning Center
• Hours and Map

Open Educational Resources (OER)

• Introduction to OER and Open Textbooks
• OER Case Studies

About OER Case Studies

Case study oer research, research on efficacy of open textbook adoption, guide reuse and attribution.

• Find Open Textbooks
• OER Events and Professional Development
• Copyright and Fair Use
• Faculty Guide: Library Resources for Instruction
• How to Search
• Library Home

Library Services

Learn more about OER and Open Textbook Adoption in practice and the research being done on student outcomes. 

Case Studies of Open Education Resource (OER) development and adoption at universities and community and technical colleges in the United States, Canada, England, and around the globe.

• The adoption of open educational resources by one community college math department
• Adopting OER: A Case Study of Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Innovation
• Broward College Online Case Study: Diving into Open Educational Resources
• Maricopa Millions Case Study: Saving Students 5 Million over 5 Years
• More case studies can be found on the Creative Commons wiki
• Moving to Open Educational Resources at Athabasca University: A Case Study
• The National STEM Consortium: TAACCCT Grant Case Study
• Northern Virginia Community College’s OER-based General Education Certificat e
• A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of postsecondary students
• Mainstreaming Open Textbooks: Educator Perspectives on the Impact of OpenStax College Open Textbooks

A consortium of community and technical colleges committed to expanding access to education and increasing student success through the adoption of open educational policy, practices, and resources. Here you will find resources to learn about the evolving practice of open education.

• Community College Consortium for OER

• << Previous: Find OER
• Next: Find Open Textbooks >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 12:29 PM
• URL: https://blackhawk.libguides.com/oer

• Franklin University |
• Help & Support |
• Locations & Maps |

• | Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

• Select not listed in the Select Your Institution drop down menu.
• Enter your Franklin email address and click Go
• click "Already a user? Click here" link
• Enter your Franklin email and the password you used to create your Safari account.

Continue Close

Open Educational Resources (OER)

• Journals / Articles
• Images / Multimedia
• Datasets / Statistics

Case Studies

• Evaluating OER
• Creative Commons Licenses
• Open Access Publishing Through OhioLINK

Affordable Learning at Franklin

Interested in Affordable Learning @ Franklin University? See our guide to affordable learning for information about Franklin University's affordable learning program and affordable learning resources available through the Franklin University Library.

• Arthur Andersen Case Studies in Business Ethics 90 case studies from 1987-94 resulting from a joint project to raise awareness of business ethics. Technically not Open Access -- however, as a participating university, Franklin University has a "license to use these materials and reproduce them as needed for instructional purposes."
• BELL Teaching Case Studies Cases on sustainability related business which "are freely available for educational distribution, as long as they are used at no cost to students."
• MIT Management Sloan School Learning Edge Case Studies Case studies on entrepreneurship, leadership/ethics, operations management, strategy, sustainability, and system dynamics which are made available under a creative commons license (see the copyright notice at the end of the case study for specifics).
• Oikos Free Cases "The oikos Free Cases provide peer-reviewed cases on sustainability in management, entrepreneurship and finance to lecturers around the world for free under the Creative Commons license."
• Open Case Studies (University of British Columbia) Free and open case studies on a variety of topics from the University of British Columbia
• Open Case Studies Project The Open Case Studies project is an educational resource of experiential guides that demonstrate how to effectively derive knowledge from data in real-world challenges.
• The Sustainable Business Case Book An open textbook on sustainable business which includes "a collection of cases which provide insights, perspective and practical guidance on how sustainable businesses operate from different business functional area perspectives."
• << Previous: Datasets / Statistics
• Next: Evaluating OER >>
• Last Updated: Mar 26, 2024 9:07 AM
• URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/OER

Open Education Resources (OER): Case Studies

• A Selection
• Teaching Online
• Case Studies

Amy T. Nusbaum, Carrie Cuttler, & Samantha Swindell. (2020). Open educational resources as a tool for educational equity: Evidence from an introductory psychology class. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 152,   1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00152

"During one semester, half of the Introductory Psychology sections at a large, public university were assigned to use OER while the other half were assigned to use the incumbent commercial textbook. Participants were asked to self-report the behaviors they engage in as a result of high textbook costs. We also examined student performance in the courses and students' perceptions and use of the two books. We found no significant differences between textbook groups on course performance or perceptions of the book, but marginalized students (first-generation students and/or ethnic minority students) reported engaging in negative behaviors (i.e., dropping a class) more often than their peers as a result of textbook costs. These findings suggest that textbook costs disproportionately affect our most vulnerable students and the use of OER may be one solution to this problem, particularly given the equivalent performance across textbook groups."

Beile, P., deNoyelles, A., & Raible, J. (2020). Analysis of an open textbook adoption in an American history course: Impact on student academic outcomes and behaviors. College & Research Libraries, 81 (4), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.4.721

"This study explored the impact of an open textbook adoption in an American history course on student academic outcomes and behaviors. Using a mixed-methods design, significant savings were realized with no decrease in student academic outcomes. Further, students reported having a positive experience using the open textbook, perceived the textbook as being of high quality, and expressed gratitude about the free cost."

Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Hyojin Park. (2018). The impact of open educational resources on various student success metrics. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 30 (2), 262–276. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE3386.pdf

"This article reports the results of a large-scale study regarding the impact of course-level faculty adoption of Open Educational Resources (OER). Results indicate that OER adoption does much more than simply save students money and address student debt concerns. OER improve end-of-course grades and decrease DFW (D, F, and Withdrawal letter grades) rates for all students."

Fialkowski, M. K., Calabrese, A., Tilinghast, B., Titchenal, C. A., Meinke, W., Banna, J. C., & Draper, J. (2020). Open educational resource textbook impact on students in an introductory nutrition course. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52 (4), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.08.006

"Academic performance in introductory nutrition was not affected by an OER textbook. An OER textbook for introductory nutrition may be an appropriate solution for institutions seeking to reduce student costs."

Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III, Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27 (3), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x

"The purpose of this study was to analyze whether the adoption of no-cost open digital textbooks significantly predicted students' completion of courses, class achievement, and enrollment intensity during and after semesters in which OER were used. This study utilized a quantitative quasi-experimental design with propensity-score matched groups to examine differences in outcomes between students that used OER and those who did not. . . . There were statistically significant differences between groups, with most favoring students utilizing OER."

Jhangiani, R. S., Dastur, F. N., Le Grand, R., & Penner, K. (2018, April). As good or better than commercial textbooks: Students' perceptions and outcomes from using open digital and open print textbooks. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9 (1), Article 5.  https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/5

"This study investigates the perceptions, use, and course performance of Canadian post-secondary students assigned a commercial or open textbook in either print or digital format. Results show that students using the print format of the open textbook perceive its quality to be superior to the commercial textbook. Moreover, students assigned an open textbook in either format perform either no differently from or better than those assigned a commercial textbook."

Jhangiani, R., & Jhangiani, S. (2017, June). Investigating the perceptions, use, and impact of open textbooks: A survey of post-secondary students in British Columbia. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 18 (4), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3012

"The present study involves a survey of 320 post-secondary students in British Columbia enrolled in courses using an open textbook during the Spring 2015, Summer 2015, and Fall 2015 semesters. The survey investigates students’ textbook purchasing behaviours, including whether, where, and in what format(s) they purchase and access their required textbooks; the negative impact of textbook costs on their course enrolment, persistence, and performance; how they access and use their open textbook, including their format preferences and study habits; and their perceptions of their open textbook, including its quality and what features they like and dislike."

Jones, M., & Nyland, R. (2020). A case study in outcomes on open-source textbook adoption in an introduction to art class. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 92,   1–6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00092

"This paper reports the outcome of a basic study in an Art 100: Introduction to Art class of 150 in which an Open Educational Resourced text was introduced. The study was the result of a survey done at the end of the semester with a review of the grades of one section using the OER text when compared to a comparable section using a commercial text. Each section was taught by the same instructor in the same semester. The study examines the cost to students, as well as student outcomes, use, and perception of the OER text among those completing the course. . . . By comparing the outcomes from each class through the University's metrics-gathering system, and by collecting the perceptions of the course through an end-of-semester survey it was determined that there was a positive result in outcomes in the section using the OER text and that students believed their text to be the equal of a published text. Additionally, they reported actually accessing and reading the OER text chapters as opposed to not purchasing a required text for a class in the past."

Ross, H. M., Hendricks, C., & Mowat, V. (2018). Open textbooks in an introductory sociology course in Canada: Student views and completion rates. Open Praxis, 10 (4), 393–403. https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.4.892

"The growing interest in the use of OER at a Western Canadian university led to the chance to survey students for their feedback on using OER instead of traditional commercial textbooks. This paper focuses on the views of students in an introductory sociology course for which an instructor adopted an open textbook and otherwise left the course unchanged from when it was taught with a traditional textbook. In addition, completion rates for the offerings with the open textbook are compared to previous offerings with a commercial textbook."

• << Previous: Teaching Online
• Next: Research >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 11:33 AM
• URL: https://libguides.coastmountaincollege.ca/oer

• Open access
• Published: 25 March 2022

Faculty perceptions, awareness and use of open educational resources for teaching and learning in higher education: a cross-comparative analysis

• Victoria I. Marín   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4673-6190 1   nAff2 ,
• Olaf Zawacki-Richter 1 ,
• Cengiz H. Aydin 3 ,
• Svenja Bedenlier 4 ,
• Melissa Bond 5 ,
• Aras Bozkurt 3 ,
• Dianne Conrad 6 ,
• Insung Jung 7 ,
• Yasar Kondakci 8 ,
• Paul Prinsloo 9 ,
• Jennifer Roberts 9 ,
• George Veletsianos 10 ,
• Junhong Xiao 11 &
• Jingjing Zhang 12  

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning volume  17 , Article number:  11 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

6867 Accesses

12 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper explores faculty’s perspectives and use of open educational resources (OER) and their repositories across different countries by conducting a multiple case study to find similarities and differences between academics’ awareness, perceptions and use of OER, as well as examining related aspects of institutional policy and quality that may influence individual views. Data were collected through nine expert reports on each country studied (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Turkey) and were analyzed through qualitative content analysis using thematic coding. Findings show the impact on individual OER adoption with regard to the individual control of diverse factors by faculty members; of institutional policies and quality measures on the externally determined factors (by the institution); and of institutional professional development and provision of incentives in more internally determined factors (by the faculty members themselves). These findings carry implications for higher education institutions around the world in their attempt to boost OER adoption by faculty members.

Introduction

Open educational resources (OER) have yet to be widely adopted in higher education (HE), despite their affordances for education and increasing interest from the educational community (Bozkurt et al., 2019 ; Murphy, 2013 ). This situation is caused in part by macro-level factors such as national regulations, funding possibilities and existing OER infrastructure; meso-level factors such as institutional policies, OER promotion measures and specific infrastructures (Conole, 2012 ; Marín et al., 2020a ; under review; Yuan et al., 2008 ); and micro-level factors such as faculty perceptions, awareness and use of OER in teaching and learning (Cox & Trotter, 2017 ), which in turn are affected by macro- and meso-level factors. Factors at the three levels are considered to be interdependent (Marín et al., 2020b ; Zawacki-Richter, 2009 ).

Prior research focusing on factors influencing OER adoption by individual faculty members has found, for example, appropriate institutional support to be an enabler, while inadequate support hinders OER practice (Baas et al., 2019 ; Bates et al., 2007 ; Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ; Bossu et al., 2014 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ). Institutional factors also include institutional readiness as OER creators, institutional culture and volition (Cox & Trotter, 2017 ), institutional reputation (Bates et al., 2007 ; Rolfe, 2012 ), cost benefit (Bates et al., 2007 ; Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ), pedagogical benefits (Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ) and availability of quality OER (Baas et al., 2019 ; Bossu et al., 2014 ). The adoption of OER is also influenced by individual faculty factors, for example, when practitioners are not equipped with adequate knowledge and/or skills required for OER (Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ; Cox & Trotter, 2017 ; Li & Li, 2012 ). Individual awareness of OER affordances is found to be a barrier to implementation (Baas et al., 2019 ; Bates et al., 2007 ; Li & Li, 2012 ; Reed, 2012 ; Rolfe, 2012 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ), whereas adequate awareness contributes to OER practice (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ) although Bossu et al. ( 2014 ) showed that awareness was not positively correlated with adoption or creation. Both individual reputation and time availability are also factors influencing individual OER adoption (Bates et al., 2007 ; Rolfe, 2012 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ). Finally, research findings included some macro-level factors that also impact on individual OER adoption, for example, intellectual property policies (Bates et al., 2007 ; Bossu et al., 2014 ).

Despite these findings, it is worth noting that only a few studies have based their work on a conceptual framework (e.g., Baas et al., 2019 ; Cox & Trotter, 2017 ; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ), looked comparatively at these aspects across countries (e.g., Jung & Lee, 2020 ) or/and used multiple data sources (e.g., Baas et al., 2019 ; Bossu et al., 2014 ). This study is significant in that the application of a conceptual framework is intended, not only to provide contextual information that helps to explain and interpret data, but also to contribute to the further development and revision of the framework. Its uniqueness also lies in a much wider-scale comparison involving more institutions across more countries. Findings from this study may be more generalizable. This is especially important, considering the increased need for digital accessible educational resources due to COVID-19 (Huang et al., 2020 ). In addition, this study has an exclusive but more comprehensive focus: It is exclusive in that it concentrates on micro-level OER practice, but more comprehensive in that it covers all key aspects of OER practice by faculty. In this sense, aspects related to OER infrastructure, quality, policy and promotion of change have not been well addressed comparatively in the literature so far and are worthy of a careful investigation to increase a general comprehensive understanding of OER factors influencing individual OER adoption worldwide and, ultimately, to aid in the search for collective, global and particular, solutions to support this adoption.

As part of the research project “Digital educational architectures: Open learning resources in distributed learning infrastructures - EduArc” ( https://uol.de/coer/research-projects/projects/eduarc ), and as a follow-up to the macro- and meso-level studies (i.e., national systems and institutional infrastructures and organization (see Marín et al., 2020a ; under review), this study aimed to analyze aspects related to the use, creation, remix and sharing of OER in HE at the micro-level of teaching and learning (that is, faculty members’ experiences) across countries. The use of the term OER in this study does not exclude our recognition that fully open educational resources are not always possible depending on institutional HE policies. The framework of content analysis for the macro- and meso-level studies was adopted, with the unique features of the micro-level also taken into account, namely infrastructure (local environment), quality (quality of OER), policy (local policies) and change (incentives and faculty support).

Against this background, the research questions are as follows:

RQ1 What are faculty members’ perceptions and use of infrastructure (e.g., tools and platforms) and types of OER across countries?

RQ2 How aware are faculty members of OER quality assurance (QA) institutional procedures and who oversees them across countries?

RQ3 To what extent are faculty members familiar with institutional OER policies and the possibilities to get involved in institutional OER policymaking across countries?

RQ4 How are faculty members motivated to use OER in their teaching practices across countries?

Conceptual framework of study

Theories and models have been developed over time to explain why individuals adopt particular technologies. Well-known models are, for instance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for analyzing the acceptance and usage of (an specific) technology, or the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) that focuses on the impact on behavioral intention of various determinants (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ) and has been used in OER adoption studies in HE (e.g., Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ). Its enhanced version (UTAUT2) includes three individual determinants in technology adoption that are moderated by age, gender and experience (Venkatesh et al., 2012 ). In a cross-cultural study on the adoption of OER in HE (Jung & Lee, 2020 ), the authors added culture to the UTAUT2 model as an important moderating variable and incorporated two cross-cultural frameworks: Hall’s ( 1976 ) high-context and low-context cultural theory and Hofstede’s ( 2001 ) cultural values framework.

Despite their interesting insights into OER adoption, these models neither specifically address its complexity nor the broader scope of research required. For example, Mtebe and Raisamo ( 2014 ) identified other factors different from the ones considered by UTAUT that are influencing OER adoption by faculty. A comprehensive model that has been used in some studies exists in the context of OER adoption by faculty: the OER Adoption Pyramid (Cox & Trotter, 2017 ).

The framework (see Fig.  1 ) considers different layers moving from externally determined (national, province or institutional level) to internally determined (individual level) factors, with each of them needed to support the next layer above. The first layer addresses access to infrastructure; the second one refers to permission to use/create OER; the third layer is related to awareness of OER, what it involves, and how it differs from other educational resources; the fourth layer addresses capacity, i.e., the skills to find, use, create and/or upload OER; the fifth layer is about availability of relevant OER of quality; and the last layer concerns volition to adopt OER, which includes individual, social, and institutional volition. According to the context in the study by Baas et al. ( 2019 ), availability should be considered a prerequisite for instructors to explore their capacity and volition and, therefore, be lower in the pyramid. However, considering different contexts in the countries involved in this study, the original version of the model has been taken into account. The OER Adoption Pyramid was used in this study to facilitate qualitative data analysis and generate new insights that lead to an enhanced model.

OER adoption pyramid. Note From “An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers’ adoption of OER” by G. Cox and H. Trotter, 2017, Open Praxis, 9 (2), p. 155. ( https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.571 )

Methodology

Aim, design and sample.

Our study is based on an interpretative paradigm and aims at identifying and understanding factors influencing individual adoption of OER in HE across countries. To this end, we conducted a comparative multi-case study (Yin, 2009 ), consisting of nine cases based on written reports collected from members of the Center for Open Education Research (COER) ( https://uol.de/coer ) from nine countries as a convenience sample: Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Turkey.

The whole design process is depicted in Fig.  2 and described below.

Design process of the study

In the first phase, common research questions for the country reports were provided based on the consideration of four main elements: infrastructure, quality, policy and measures for change (see Table  1 ). These research questions were based on the consideration of the three broad meta-levels of distance education research (Zawacki-Richter, 2009 ). The microlevel (teaching and learning in distance education) was taken into account and adapted to the situation of OER in any form of education modalities in higher education, considering the particular focus on aspects influencing OER infrastructures of the EduArc project.

Data collection

While much research around OER relies on one or two data sources, this study draws from multiple and complementary data sources contained in each case report, in order to enable a more nuanced analysis of the topic under investigation.

The case reports were mainly based on desk research, i.e., secondary research, such as empirical studies covering local issues on OER, and document analysis (e.g., white papers, policy papers, institutional reports), but some of them included data collected through primary research too, namely: a survey and personal interviews (phase 2 in Fig.  2 , for details, see Table  2 ). As different countries were involved and the situations greatly differ across countries, the autonomy was given to the experts to decide what kind of data were needed to tell coherent stories of their country cases. As an illustrative example, in China’s case, after analyzing the secondary data, experts found that they needed to interview key people who were involved in designing and implementing OERs in higher education institutions to explain how and why things were going as described in the secondary data.

With regard to the primary research, personal interviews were designed in a semi-structured form, following the research questions for the micro-level of the corresponding work package of the project. The number of interviews and survey participants predominantly included faculty; however, in a few cases administrators (Turkey) and librarian staff (Australia and Canada) also participated. In the case of China, only administrators were interviewed. Participants also came from different HE institutions; Australian participants were represented by 22 HE institutions, the German survey addressed faculty from HE institutions in the federal state of Lower Saxony, and Spanish participants came from 64 universities and formed a representative sample. The variation in participant numbers—especially in the three quantitative surveys—needs to be kept in mind when results are reported so as to not misinterpret percentages that are provided. All study participants involved had given their informed consent to participate.

By including multiple types of data sources in their country reports (e.g., interviews, surveys, empirical papers, reports, etc.), the experts aimed to add to the qualitative rigor of the study (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011 ). Data collected by different methods helped increase the richness of the case studies, especially in the cases where desk research was not enough to provide a proper answer to the posed research questions.

Data analysis

Quantitative and qualitative data from the case reports were analyzed through thematic coding with MAXQDA2020 in several iterations (Miles et al., 2013 ). MAXQDA2020 is a software for qualitative and mixed methods that can be used for any type of qualitative research and integrates a comprehensive set of tools for collecting and organizing data, analyzing and visualizing data. Each case report was uploaded to MAXQDA2020 as documents for the iterative coding process (third phase in Fig.  2 ).

In the first iteration, the data were categorized into main codes based on the four elements of the reports described in the research questions (Infrastructure, Policy, Quality and Change). In the second iteration, the OER Adoption Pyramid (Cox & Trotter, 2017 ) was integrated as a way of understanding some of the elements, especially concerning awareness, capacity, availability and volition. In the third phase of coding, codes and subcodes were added by abductive coding, based on the identification of new topics that were not covered in the two previous deductive phases, considering how the data could support the previous coding schema and call for its modification (Kennedy & Thornberg, 2018 ). The fourth and final phase of coding involved the revision of some codes and subcodes according to the literature that has explored faculty’s perceptions about OER (e.g., Baas et al., 2019 ; Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ; Cox & Trotter, 2017 ), as well as renaming codes for greater accuracy and deleting redundant codes. In addition, each of the coded segments was given a “comment” in MAXQDA, in order to summarize its content (“the preview”), given that many of them were overly long. This action was carried out in order to facilitate the generation of visualizations of codes–subcodes–segments with MAXMaps (functionality within MAXQDA2020) after the analysis. Each report could have more than one coded segment related to one, more or the same (sub)code. The iterative coding process was conducted by one coder, but the research group reached a consensus regarding the final versions of the codes. The whole coding process took three intensive months, with longer periods concentrated within the third and fourth phases due to their complexity.

This process resulted in an enhanced model that combines the OER Adoption Pyramid and the four elements of the research project at the micro-level based on data from the international reports. Therefore, the enhanced model provides a broader view to the previous literature, which focused exclusively on one institution or country (see Fig.  3 , with various codes and subcodes depicted).

Enhanced OER adoption pyramid combined with infrastructure (I), policy (P), quality (Q) and change (C). Note The differentiation between the four aspects is done using parenthesis and colors

Limitations

This study’s methodological approach presents some limitations that must be acknowledged. As each country expert (or group of experts) was able to organize their case as they wanted, according to the project’s main research questions, we could not report on homogeneous data collection methods as the basis for the reports. Similarly, the primary empirical data do not come from the application of the same instruments; even in the case of using the same data collection method (survey or interview), neither refers to comparative data in terms of the number of participants. Furthermore, although consensus on the final version of the coding schema was reached by the research group, the data analysis involved only one coder and this fact could involve a bias in the interpretation and saturation of the report data. Even though these limitations may make the comparison across countries difficult, the exploration of the same research questions still presents valuable insights into the topic.

Findings and discussion

Research question 1: use and perceptions of oer.

This research question considered faculty members’ use of OER infrastructure, as well as types of OER, alongside their perceptions with regard to the challenges of this infrastructure.

Faculty use of OER infrastructure and OER types

Under the umbrella code Adoption , we included different subcodes that refer to the appropriation of the OER infrastructure by faculty members (see Fig.  4 ).

Subcodes and examples for adoption (RQ1). Note Umbrella code (i.e., Adoption) is in the center and subcodes (e.g., Use of OER tools) are connected to it. The numbers between parentheses in codes and subcodes (also onwards on in n  =) refer to the number of coded segments. Examples of those coded segments have been included for each subcode, where the information in parentheses refers to the country report and the line number where that segment is located in the corresponding document. This note applies to the next figures too

The use of OER repositories ( n  = 20) varied in each country. In Canada, one of the interviewees (respondent B) highlighted eCampus Ontario as a “fairly good source of resources”. Also, some interviewees used social media for evidence of new and relevant materials (respondents B and D). In Japan, in the study by Jung et al. ( 2013 ) that involved 27 educators, faculty used YouTube as educational content (53.3%), but none of the Japanese faculty members had created video lectures and uploaded them to YouTube. In Spain, faculty members reported using institutional repositories in different ways, but the common ones were as a place to store (and share) OER (especially the institutional virtual learning platform). For instance, one participant in the Spanish survey stated that “(I use OER repositories) to store all the class materials and activities.” However, a high percentage of the Spanish and German faculty participants in the survey studies did not know about the existence of OER repositories in their institutions (27.4% and 36.8%, respectively). A general lack of knowledge about tools and repositories was also identified in Australia in its survey study, in contrast with the research by Bossu et al. ( 2014 ). Lack of awareness of OER repositories is an acknowledged barrier to OER access and sharing (Bates et al., 2007 ).

Concerning types of OER ( n  = 14), certain types of resources were common across the countries, especially videos and presentations. For example, in Canada, Hayman’s study ( 2018 ) reported on OER use in Ontario with 383 post-secondary educators who participated. The data showed that 79% of participants used YouTube videos, 83% used web links, and 55% used open access articles. In Spain, the most popular OER formats reported by participants in the survey were slide presentations (87.7%), OER in text format (74.5%) and pictures (65.9%), but videos (48.4%) and assessment tests (43.3%) received a high degree of use too. Australian educators preferred to use OER that require little modification, for example, freely available videos such as TedX talks and YouTube clips (Kandlbinder & Chelliah, 2015 ). In the study by Li ( 2015 ) with Chinese academics from the Northwest Normal University, interviewees used mostly images (92%) and audio recordings (69%). These findings are in line with previous literature that shows that instructors are more commonly using technology in teacher-centered approaches than in student-centered ways; therefore, teaching practices are not profoundly transformed (Bond et al., 2018 ; Blin & Munro, 2008 ; Marcelo & Yot-Domínguez, 2018 ; Marcelo-García et al., 2015 ). This situation has persisted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as most of the types of OER used by faculty in this period ( n  = 6) show. For instance, in China, and in particular at Peking University, academics mostly adopted live-streaming, accounting for 50% of the total number of courses (Gong, 2020 ). Similarly, in a survey of 716 faculty members at Seoul National University in South Korea, over 32% of academics used self-created video lectures, and over 22% offered task-based online lectures (Park, 2020 ).

Challenges regarding OER infrastructure according to faculty perceptions

Interoperability issues (n = 3) were among the challenges of OER infrastructure identified by faculty in Turkey, Canada and Spain, also common in the literature (Yuan et al., 2008 ). For instance, in Spain, 45.6% of survey participants stated that the integration between OER repositories and other institutional systems existed, but a high number of academic staff were unsure of the existence of this integration (34%).

If we look at the OER Adoption Pyramid framework, the main category involved in OER Infrastructure is Availability as an additional challenge to interoperability (see Fig.  5 ).

Subcodes and examples for availability (RQ1)

Some of the elements included within the availability of OER have been also covered in previous literature. One survey participant in the Australian study stated that “unfortunately the repository does not have a visible license field which undermines our ability to support content in terms of infrastructure.” Also, our study found that a lack of discoverability of OER was a challenge in Australia and Canada; this was also identified in other studies in the Netherlands (Baas et al., 2019 ), Tanzania (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ) and the USA (Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ).

Research question 2: Awareness and perceptions of OER quality assurance (QA)

This research question explored how faculty defined the quality of OER, and how aware they were in terms of quality institutional measures and procedures, as well as of institutional agents for QA (see Fig.  6 ).

Subcodes and examples for quality (RQ2)

Faculty awareness and perceptions of OER quality

Perceptions about the quality of OER ( n  = 10) appeared in seven reports (Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Turkey). In many of the countries, these perceptions referred to a common prejudice against OER as being of low quality. For instance, in Turkey, openness and OER-related concepts were related to free sources with low quality. In South Africa, Madiba ( 2018 ) referred to lecturers’ concern about using OER by authors whose reputations are in doubt or not yet established. Interviewee E in Canada remarked that “OER supporters must challenge the ‘myths’ about their use and quality”. The poor quality of OER available and the concerns regarding the quality of content stored in OER repositories are common challenges found in the previous literature (Bates et al., 2007 ; Bossu et al., 2014 ; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ).

In most of the countries studied, a low awareness along with a lack of frameworks regarding OER quality and their infrastructure ( n  = 8) was highlighted. For example, a survey study in China with 172 participants from eight universities identified a lack of supervision to ensure that faculty members implemented online teaching and OER of a high quality (Xu, 2018 ). In South Korea, a challenge pointed out by Lee and Kim ( 2015 ) for the active adoption of OCW was the lack of mechanisms to ensure the quality of OCW. This issue is in line with the lack of awareness pointed out previously (Baas et al., 2019 ; Li & Li, 2012 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ), but it also links to insufficient institutional support (Bossu et al., 2014 ).

Institutional and individual QA agents

In this section, we address faculty awareness concerning institutional quality assurance (QA) agents involved in OER, as well as faculty involvement as QA agents in OER at the teaching and learning level ( institutional and individual QA agents , n  = 15).

In China, Xu’s survey ( 2018 ) showed that a low percentage of faculty members (30.2%) agreed with the statement that “the university has a teaching team for developing OER,” whereas 25% responded with “completely disagree.” In Australia, the library played a key role in OER development at the Queensland University of Technology, through an optional stage of QA (Stevens et al., 2017 ). In Spain and Germany, the awareness of institutional QA agents reported by participants in the survey was low. The influence of IT services for the institutional LMS was perceived by faculty members as relevant in Germany (40.8%), but between 30 and 45% of participants were unsure or did not provide an answer to the question. Many of the remaining participants agreed that academic staff that use OER are the most influential actors as far as defining OER quality, of OER metadata and of OER repositories in the universities concerned (Spain: 41.2%; Germany: 42.1%). For instance, one participant in the Spanish survey stated that “it is a self-publication, there are no mechanisms of evaluation or quality in the repository. The OCW project died, it was not followed up”. This faculty involvement and responsibility for OER quality were also present in other countries too (e.g., Japan, Turkey).

Research question 3: Awareness of OER policies

In this section, we focused on faculty involvement in policymaking and their awareness of institutional policies related to OER (see Fig.  7 ).

Subcodes and examples for policy (RQ3)

Specific institutional policies

A lack of institutional policies for OER ( n  = 8) was acknowledged in most of the countries. For instance, Canadian respondents E and H stated that there were no guiding institutional policies or direction in OER. In Australia, 64% of the survey participants indicated that explicit institutional OER policies or frameworks were non-existent in their institutions; a finding which is backed by a dearth of institutional policies noted in the literature (Open Education Licensing Project, 2016a ). Previous studies also echo these findings in relation to the lack of institutional and departmental policies for the development and use of OER repositories as a barrier for the uptake of OER initiatives (Bates et al., 2007 ; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ).

Even in cases where some kind of OER policy was in place, the need for policy improvement ( n  = 9) was made explicit. A clear case of this is South Korea, despite its institutional emphasis on OER creation and utilization. Similarly, in the study survey by Wang and Wu ( 2013 ) at Peking University (China), 153 faculty members argued that more policies and mechanisms for motivating faculties to develop OER by protecting their intellectual properties were key to promoting OER. Cox and Trotter ( 2016 ) pointed out that a strong policy imperative would be crucial for faculty in the context of Unisa (the largest distance teaching university on the African continent, located in South Africa) to actively embrace OER. Also, de Oliveira Neto et al.’s ( 2017 ) findings in the Global South showed that OER-related policies did not seem to be relevant regarding OER use, but they do for OER creation. One of the participants in the survey study in Spain elaborated further on this topic regarding the situation in their institution:

There is a policy, but it will have to be improved and more widely disseminated. I do not believe that there is a lack of interest, on the contrary, but there is a lack of time and more measures in the direction taken so that it becomes part of the culture of the institution. Among these measures are […]: time, space, incentives, recognition...

In line with these findings, faculty awareness of institutional policies ( n  = 7) was low overall across the countries, with the same exception as before (South Korea). In Spain and Germany, most of the academics surveyed were unsure about the existence of institutional policies for specific study programs or for department/faculties (Spain, 67.4%; Germany, 56.6%). In addition, only around 20–25% of the Spanish and German participants surveyed stated that there was an explicit or implicit institutional policy or regulations concerning the use and/or creation of OER in their universities. Over half the participants were uncertain about this. In the study by Xu ( 2018 ) in China, only 33% of the participants were aware of relevant national policies, and only 37.2% knew about relevant university policies. These findings also echo previous works (e.g., Cox & Trotter, 2016 ).

Faculty involvement in policymaking

Faculty involvement in policymaking ( n  = 8) was present in some institutions but often reported as anecdotal cases. The exception was South Korea, where individual faculty members were regularly involved in policymaking via various committees and internal/external reviews. For instance, according to a field study at a Chinese university in Nanjing (Meng, 2018 ), faculty members were invited to attend seminars to give feedback on the policy for calculating their reduction in face-to-face teaching workload if they were using OER (online courses). As an Australian institutional case, the OER policy of the Queensland University of Technology was developed with the input of the University Copyright Officer, diverse units related to learning, teaching and IT, and various individual academics interested in OER (Open Education Licensing Project, 2016b ).

When asked in the Australian survey which actors were involved in OER policymaking at their institutions, only 30% of participants provided some level of response. The most involved actors of OER policy mentioned were the libraries and, to a lesser degree, only “individual academics” or “individual/small group of educators who are OER champions.” The role of librarians was similarly exemplified by respondent E in Canada: by belonging to a provincial working group on OER, “she pushes her institution for change and for policy development.” Most of the surveyed academics in Spain and Germany were either not involved in the preparation of institutional OER policies (Spain, 36.3%; Germany, 19.7%) or uncertain about it (Spain, 54.6%; Germany, 57.9%). Regarding the possibilities of influencing explicit policies, both Spanish and German academics were mostly unsure (Spain, 57.8%; Germany, 64.5%).

While the role of (academic) librarians as change agents to promote open access within the institutions has started to be explored in previous literature (e.g., Mullen & Otto, 2014 ), it is noteworthy that specific librarian and faculty involvement in policymaking for OER and OER repositories seem to be still largely under researched.

Research question 4: Promotion measures for faculty use of OER

Promotion of change at the microlevel was directly related to different parts of the OER Adoption Pyramid model; permission, awareness, capacity and volition in particular . In addition to this, individual volition had a clear and relevant extrinsic motivating factor: the presence or absence of incentives.

Faculty involvement in creating OER and advancing the infrastructures

To describe faculty involvement in OER, we need to acknowledge different elements that directly affect this involvement. The first of them is the factor permission ( n  = 8), which refers to institutional dispositions to which the academics are tied, particularly related to copyright issues and who owns OER developed by faculty members. For example, in Turkey, the current Law of Intellectual and Artistic Property Rights includes two articles to allow the use of OER for not-for-profit face-to-face educational processes, as long as the creators were cited; however, nothing was specified about open and distance learning. In South Africa, and particularly at Unisa, the institution owns all the intellectual property of work created by staff members, but at University of Cape Town academics are allowed to own it and, therefore, label it as OER (Cox & Trotter, 2016 ). In Canada, respondent A explained that part of the challenge in adopting OER is the issue of institutional ownership of OER created by faculty: “created material belongs to the institution, thus inhibiting some instructors from creating their own OER. Their contracts prevent them from seeking a CC license for their products.” Similarly, in many Australian HE institutions, OER “ownership is retained by the university—the lecturer must seek policy approval to release course materials outside of the institution” (Stagg & Partridge, 2019 , p. 479). Intellectual property policies are one of the main problematic issues that arose in previous literature too and have been suggested as “the root cause of slow development in this field” (Bossu et al., 2014 ; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ; Yuan et al., 2008 , p. 16).

The second factor that affects faculty involvement in OER actions is awareness ( n  = 18), which refers to the degree of knowledge that faculty members have concerning OER and the philosophy behind openness. It was more common that faculty showed low rather than high awareness as shown by Chikuni et al. ( 2019 ) in South Africa, which also echoes previous work overall and in other countries (e.g., Baas et al., 2019 ; Li & Li, 2012 ; Schuwer & Janssen, 2018 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ). On the other hand, 83% of the participants in the Australian survey had previously heard of OER and, similarly, high levels of awareness of OER among a majority of the respondents from 4-year institutions were found out in a large-scale survey with educators from Japanese HE institutions (Shigeta et al., 2017 ), in contrast with studies from other contexts.

Capacity ( n  = 11) is the third relevant factor in faculty involvement with OER. Most of the reports highlighted some shortage of academics’ digital skills and emphasized the importance of institutional professional development support. For instance, in a survey of 119 academic staff members at Unisa (South Africa), Roberts ( 2016 ) found that the respondents’ perception of their own ability to be technically sound was very low and that training in this area was required. In Canada, according to respondent E, “a lack of technical skills (was an element that) impeded some (educators)”, which is reported in a previous study in the same geographical context: the need for educators to be better educated in OER-related skills, such as finding appropriate materials (Hayman, 2018 ). Interestingly, there was a comment from an interviewee from the Beijing National University Centre of Information and Network Technology who stated: “the most important factor that impacts on the (digital, including OER) implementation is IT literacy among leaders and administrative staff who are involved directly in digitalization work at the institutional level”. Similarly, a challenge pointed out by Lee and Kim ( 2015 ) for the active adoption of OCW in South Korea was the lack of digital competence at both faculty and institutional levels, which echoes previous research in China (Li & Li, 2012 ) and in Tanzania (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ).

The last factor included here is volition and concerns the desire of faculty to create, use, adapt, remix and share OER when referred to individual volition ( n  = 48) (see Fig.  8 ), but there could be social and institutional volition too.

Subcodes and examples for individual volition (RQ4)

Many of the elements identified for individual volition appear in the literature related to the topic (Cox & Trotter, 2017 ). For example, student cost–benefit was an important factor in Canada and South Africa but was also present in the perceptions of US faculty members found in the previous literature (Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ); all of them are countries where OER, and in particular textbooks, are usually expensive. In these countries, but also in Australia, open textbook initiatives have flourished (Stagg & Partridge, 2019 ). Time restraints were a factor expressed in many of the reports, also supported by the literature (e.g., Baas et al., 2019 ; Bates et al., 2007 ; Cox & Trotter, 2017 ; Yuan et al., 2008 ).

Concerning social volition ( n  = 11), we refer to the social environment of the faculty members (department, other faculty members, colleagues) and how interested/resistant they are to be involved in OER processes, but also the influence that this exerts on individual volition through modeling or social desirability. An element that stood out in the reports of Canada and China was the presence of OER forerunners as inspiration for colleagues at their institutions or even at a broader level. In Japan, social influence from peers was highlighted as more important than improving performance in regard to adopting OER, which emphasizes the relevance of culture (Jung & Lee, 2020 ), in contrast with a study in the context of Tanzania (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ). On the other hand, Canadian respondents B and E reported that faculty members in their institutions were reluctant to use or trust repositories and OER.

Institutional volition ( n  = 22) is another factor related to the development and adoption of OER, and it refers to the interest of the institution to push OER forward (see Fig.  9 ), e.g., through institutional encouragement, commitment or requirement. For example, a survey participant in the Australian study stated that “unofficially, slight pressure is being applied to lecturers at a very low level to encourage them to consider open textbooks as a cost-reduction measure for students”. The influence of institutional volition is also a relevant element considered in the literature (e.g., Cox & Trotter, 2016 ).

Subcodes and examples for institutional volition (RQ4)

Support for faculty in OER creation

Faculty were supported in creating, sharing, using and remixing OER and using repositories by two main elements at this level: institutional professional development support (addressed to improve capacity ) and the use of incentives (addressed to increase individual volition ). Both elements have been recognized as key elements for individual OER promotion by previous works within this research area (Belikov & Bodily, 2016 ; Cox & Trotter, 2016 ; Murphy, 2013 ).

In terms of institutional professional development support ( n  = 28), most of the reports mentioned different forms of this support and training. We considered institutional training and support as two different professional development (PD) aspects as well as faculty awareness of PD institutional agents (see Fig.  10 ). For example, a participant in the Spanish survey stated that “in some cases, support has been offered for creating knowledge pills and for creating resources to incorporate in MOOCs. Some initiatives are supported by the teaching innovation program of the university”.

Subcodes and examples for institutional professional development support (RQ4)

Incentives ( n  = 29) were important measures to support change to OER at the individual level (see Fig.  11 ). Diverse kinds of incentives were mentioned in the reports: the assignment of teaching assistants, measures for recognition and faculty evaluation, the reduction in teaching load, as well as monetary incentives. For instance, an interview participant from China that had previously held a managerial role at Beijing Open University stated that “(the university) has policies to award ‘high-quality-courses’ and ‘teaching excellence’ to faculty members who prove themselves able to create high-quality educational resources or who demonstrate excellent instructional designs in their courses every year”. However, lack of incentives ( n  = 7), also present in the literature (e.g., Yuan et al., 2008 ) and especially related to economic compensation, was remarkable in countries such as Canada, South Africa and Spain, as the following quotation from a Spanish survey participant describes:

They are valued but, in short, they are made by teaching vocation and teaching conviction. They are not compensated financially, and it is very time consuming (to create them). It only produces personal and teacher satisfaction, in no case economic satisfaction, at least not at present.

Subcodes and examples for incentives (RQ4)

OER sharing, integration and remixing by faculty

OER practices ( n  = 24) by faculty members in the reports show that OER uptake is overall in its infancy, which could also be explained by factors identified in the previous sections. This would also correspond to what the Open Educational Quality (OPAL) initiative of the Open Educational Practices (OEP) matrix presents as “early stages/awareness” (Conole, 2012 ).

Although many of the reports mentioned OER use and development, much less space was devoted to describing practices beyond these activities (e.g., sharing, remixing, integrating) and some challenges were highlighted. For instance, the continuous use of OER without an opportunity for revisions or updates was identified among the barriers to South Korean faculty involvement in the creation of OER (Lim et al., 2017 ). De Hart et al. ( 2015 ), in their study with Unisa staff (South Africa), found that “activities relating to the use of OER (accessing, redistributing and re-using) are far more frequent than activities relating to contributing to OER (revision, remixing, developing)” (p. 32). Similarly, the survey studies in Spain and Germany showed that many faculty members did not use OER from repositories (68% and 54%), search for OER in them (48% and 55.3%), and neither published in them (48% and 43.4%) nor in non-institutional repositories (68.8% and 86.8%). These findings echo Reed’s ( 2012 ) study in the UK with regard to formal, large-scale sharing of educational materials in specific OER repositories.

In Canada, concrete OER practices were shown by respondents H, F and C. For instance, respondent C had been an avid OER creator for several years and co-created together with her students a textbook with eCampus Ontario which was then published via PressBooks. Furthermore, she “would rather invest the time in adapting materials to her own needs than re-invent the wheel” and “share(s) relevant material (with her colleagues), ‘the good stuff’, in its original format, often by email,” unofficially. This finding related to that of Baas et al. ( 2019 ) in the Netherlands, as well as Reed ( 2012 ) and Rolfe ( 2012 ) in the UK, where faculty frequently shared resources informally, however, the current findings differ when it comes to willingness to adapt OER in Baas et al. ( 2019 ).

Along the same lines, despite high levels of OER awareness and knowledge by participants, the majority of faculty members in Australian HE involved in the study by Bossu et al. ( 2014 ) had rarely or never used, developed, and/or re-purposed OER. In the survey, a participant mentioned that there was a push to “tag everything as being an OER upon completion” but that there “is very small uptake” as regards use or storage of OER in institutional repositories.

This study contributed to the literature by providing new insights into the factors that influence OER adoption by faculty in various countries and by emphasizing the importance of factors that have been previously identified in the literature. This study also offers a revision of the OER Adoption Pyramid as an analytical framework to consider further elements that were investigated in the project at higher levels (macro and meso level perspectives).

Key findings of the study are several. In RQ1, we identified commonalities in the use of OER (i.e., slide presentations and videos) and their repositories (low awareness and use) by faculty members in various countries. External OER platforms such as YouTube were well known and used as sources. Faculty perceptions referred to the diverse challenges concerning OER infrastructure, in particular, the availability of OER.

In RQ2, we explored the awareness of faculty members of institutional procedures related to OER QA and QA agents across countries. A low awareness along with a lack of frameworks was highlighted, as well as the importance of faculty members as agents of QA at the micro-level. Similar findings were reported in RQ3 regarding faculty awareness of institutional OER policies and involvement in policymaking: a lack of institutional policies along with a low awareness of them was common. Even in the exceptional cases where this situation was not the case, a need for policy improvement was made clear.

Finally, in RQ4, we identified the need for encouragement measures to be implemented by HE institutions, in order to motivate faculty to use OER. Diverse kinds of incentives and institutional professional development and support were highlighted, but it was also made explicit that individual, social and institutional volition influence the actual individual decision to use OER. Within OER practices, the fact that the emphasis made by institutions (when existing) was on using and creating OER, but less often on co-creating, remixing and sharing them, was remarkable. Notwithstanding the limitations of the study in terms of data collection, the findings offer possibilities of reflection and action for HE institutions and administrators across countries and invite faculty to learn from the experiences of these international HE academics.

Overall, despite various calls for OER and OEP on the political agenda in many countries, this international multiple case study has shown that the current state of OER awareness and adoption among faculty members is (still) disappointing and leaves room for improvement and development. Concrete implications of the study for HE institutions to foster faculty use of OER could point toward the improvement in the availability of OER in institutional repositories and the development of measures for dissemination and faculty involvement in OER policy and QA. HE institutions may also consider effective monetary and recognition incentives, which might include not only a reduction in workload but also the development of professional development training and support that is directly targeted at OER copyright issues and strategies for properly finding, remixing, sharing and co-creating OER beyond simple OER individual use and/or creation. We believe that these institutional measures may address most of the factors identified for individual volition and encourage faculty to use, remix, share and publish OER at the micro-level.

Future research may consider co-design processes for institutional OER promotion and adoption between faculty and administrators. The long-term impact of the emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic on faculty interest and practices with OER at the microlevel may also lead to rich insight and provide further guidance for policy, creation and implementation going forward.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Higher education

Open educational practices

Open educational resources

Professional development

Quality assurance

Research question

Baas, M., Admiraal, W., & van den Berg, E. (2019). Teachers‘ adoption of open educational resources in higher education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.510

Article   Google Scholar  

Bates, M., Loddington, S., Manuel, S., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Attitudes to the rights and rewards for author contributions to repositories for teaching and learning. ALT-J, 15 (1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760600837066

Belikov, O. M., & Bodily, R. (2016). Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open Praxis, 8 (3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.308

Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50 (2), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017

Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 15 , 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1 .

Bossu, C., Brown, M., & Bull, D. (2014). Adoption, use and management of open educational resources to enhance teaching and learning in Australia . Sydney. https://bit.ly/36xqK3d .

Bozkurt, A., Koseoglu, S., & Singh, L. (2019). An analysis of peer reviewed publications on openness in education in half a century: Trends and patterns in the open hemisphere. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 35 (4), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4252 .

Chikuni, P. R., Cox, G., & Czerniewicz, L. (2019). Exploring the institutional OER policy landscape in South Africa: Dominant discourses and assumptions. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15 (4), 165–179.

Google Scholar  

Conole, G. (2012). Integrating OER into open educational practices. In J. Glennie, K. Harley, N. Butscher, & T. van Wyk (Eds.), Perspectives on open and distance learning: Open educational resources and change in higher education: reflections from practice (pp. 111–124). Commonwealth of Learning.

Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2016). Institutional culture and OER policy: How structure, culture, and agency mediate OER policy potential in South African universities. International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2523

Cox, G. J., & Trotter, H. (2017). An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers’ adoption of OER. Open Praxis, 9 (2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.571

De Hart, K. L., Chetty, Y. B., & Archer, E. (2015). Uptake of OER by staff in distance education in South Africa. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (2), 18–45. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2047

de Oliveira Neto, J. D., Pete, J., Daryono & Cartmill, T. (2017). OER use in the Global South: A baseline survey of higher education instructors. In Hodgkinson-Williams, C., Arinto, P.B. (Eds.), Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South (pp. 69–118). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.599535 .

Gong, Q. (2020). The methods and approaches of improving online teaching in Universities and Colleges. China Higher Education, 07 , 4–6.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture . Doubleday.

Hayman, J. (2018). Awareness and use of open educational resources (OER) in Ontario: A preliminary study of post-secondary educator perspectives . eCampusOntario. https://bit.ly/3eWofLt .

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Sage.

Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: Application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00125-8

Jung, I., & Lee, J. (2020). A cross-cultural approach to the adoption of open educational resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology , 51 (1), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12820 .

Jung, I. S., Ho, C., & Suzuki, K. (2013). YouTube use in colleges in Japan and USA: A comparative look. Japanese Journal of Educational Media Research , 19 (2), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.24458/jaems.19.2_11 .

Kandlbinder, P., & Chelliah, J. (2015). Learning2014: An institution-wide strategy to encourage innovation in teaching and learning . https://bit.ly/2UpWvWc .

Kennedy, B., & Thornberg, R. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 49–64). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n4

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lee, E., & Kim, K. (2015). A study of Korean professors’ experiences in the adoption and use of Open Courseware. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 (1), 65–91.

Li, L. (2015). The present situation research about multimedia teaching in Northwest Normal University . Master's dissertation, Northwest Normal University.

Li, Y., & Li, Y. (2012). A study on the use of open educational resources in China. Modern Distance Education Research, 02 , 74–81.

Lim, C., Kim, S., & Choi, H. (2017). A study on the establishment of OER-based higher education support system . Korea Education and Research Information Service.

Madiba, A. M. (2018). Lecturers' perceptions and experiences of open educational resources in teaching and learning . Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State.

Marcelo, C., & Yot-Domínguez, C. (2018). From chalk to keyboard in higher education classrooms: Changes and coherence when integrating technological knowledge into pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43 (7), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1429584

Marcelo-García, C., Yot-Domínguez, C., & Mayor-Ruiz, C. (2015). University teaching with digital technologies. Comunicar, 23 (45), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.3916/C45-2015-12

Marín, V. I., Bond, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., Aydin, C., Bedenlier, S., Bozkurt, A., et al. (2020). A Comparative Study of National Infrastructures for Digital (Open) Educational Resources in Higher Education. Open Praxis , 12 (2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.2.1071 .

Marín, V. I., Zawacki-Richter, O., Aydin, C.H., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Bozkurt, A., Conrad, D., Jung, I., Kondakci, Y., Prinsloo, P., Roberts, J., Veletsianos, G., Xiao, J., & Zhang, J. (under review). Institutional Measures for Supporting OER in Higher Education: An International Case-Based Study.

Marín, V. I., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Bedenlier, S. (2020). Open Educational Resources (OER) in German Higher Education (HE). An International Perspective. In Enhancing the Human Experience of Learning with Technology: New challenges for research into digital, open, distance & networked education. European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) Proceedings 2020 Research Workshop (pp. 85–94) . Lisbon, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.38069/edenconf-2020-rw-0010 .

Meng, X. (2018). Research on the current situation and countermeasures of credit recognition in Chinese Universities based on online open courses . Master's dissertation, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook . SAGE.

Mtebe, J., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Challenges and instructors’ intention to adopt and use open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15 (1), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1687

Mullen, L. B., & Otto, J. (2014). Open access policymaking: roles for academic librarians as “change agents” in research institutions. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) Journal , 1 , 295–307. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3SJ1HZW .

Murphy, A. (2013). Open educational practices in higher education: Institutional adoption and challenges. Distance Education, 34 (2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.793641

Open Education Licensing Project. (2016a). OEL case study: Charles Sturt University . https://bit.ly/32XZwSz .

Open Education Licensing Project. (2016b). OEL case study: Queensland University of Technology . https://bit.ly/35q5kFM .

Park, J. H. (2020). Generally satisfied with online teaching but improvement needed . The SNU Press. https://bit.ly/33x6r5e .

Reed, P. (2012). Awareness, attitudes and participation of teaching staff towards the open content movement in one university. Research in Learning Technology . https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.18520

Roberts, J. (2016). Future and changing roles of staff in distance education: a study to identify training and professional development needs. Distance Education , 39 (1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1419818 .

Rolfe, V. (2012). Open educational resources: Staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology . https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14395

Schuwer, R., & Janssen, B. (2018). Adoption of sharing and reuse of open resources by educators in higher education institutions in the Netherlands: A qualitative research of practices, motives, and conditions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3390

Shigeta, K., Koizumi, M., Sakai, H., Tsuji, Y., Inaba, R., & Hiraoka, N. (2017). A survey of the awareness offering, and adoption of OER and MOOcs in Japan. Open Praxis, 9 (2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.568

Stagg, A., & Partridge, H. (2019). Facilitating open access to information: A community approach to open education and open textbooks. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56 (1), 477–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.76

Stevens, J., Bradbury, S., & Hutley, S. (2017). Open education in practice—How policy can lead to positive change. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association . https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2017.1357914

Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16 , 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Wang, A., & Wu, H. (2013). Study of the factors related to the openness of the faculty’s courses. Open Education Research, 02 , 79-84+120. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2013.02.013

Xu, Y. (2018). A study on the effectiveness of online open course construction policy in colleges and universities . Master's dissertation, Southwest University.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Yuan, L., MacNeill, S., & Kraan, W. (2008). Open educational resources—Opportunities and challenges for higher education . Educational Cybernetics: Reports. Institute for Educational Cybernetics, University of Bolton.

Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research Areas in Distance Education: A Delphi Study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.674 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is part of the microlevel report of the work package 11 of the project “Digital educational architectures: Open learning resources in distributed learning infrastructures – EduArc” funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant #16DHB2129).

Author information

Victoria I. Marín

Present address: University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain

Authors and Affiliations

Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany

Victoria I. Marín & Olaf Zawacki-Richter

Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Cengiz H. Aydin & Aras Bozkurt

Innovation in Learning Institute, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

Svenja Bedenlier

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Melissa Bond

Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada

Dianne Conrad

International Christian University, Mitaka, Japan

Insung Jung

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Yasar Kondakci

University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Paul Prinsloo & Jennifer Roberts

Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada

George Veletsianos

Shantou Radio and Television University, Shantou, China

Junhong Xiao

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Jingjing Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

VIM has contributed to the conception, design and writing of the work, the acquisition and analysis of Spanish data, and to the overall interpretation of data. OZ-R has contributed to the conception of the work, the acquisition of German data and the substantial revision of the work. CHA, SB, MB, AB, DC, IJ, YK, PP, JR, GV, JX, JZ have contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data related to their country reports, as well as to the revision of the work. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria I. Marín .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

All the authors are members of the Center for Open Education Research (COER), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg (Germany).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Marín, V.I., Zawacki-Richter, O., Aydin, C.H. et al. Faculty perceptions, awareness and use of open educational resources for teaching and learning in higher education: a cross-comparative analysis. RPTEL 17 , 11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00185-z

Download citation

Received : 20 January 2021

Accepted : 20 February 2022

Published : 25 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00185-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Open educational resources (OER)
• Repositories
• Higher education (HE)
• Faculty members
• International comparison

• The Open University
• Explore OpenLearn

• Get started
• Create a course
• Free courses
• Collections

My OpenLearn Create Profile

• Personalise your OpenLearn profile
• Save Your favourite content
• Get recognition for your learning

Already Registered?

Resources for Open Educational Practice

• Description

About this material

• 10 hours study
• 0 Level 0: Beginner

0 out of 5 stars

Sign up to get more

You can start learning at any time. By signing up and enrolling you can track your progress and earn a Statement of Participation upon completion, all for free.

This material is part of a collection

This material is part of a collection of materials called Opening Educational Practices in Scotland. There are 2 materials in this collection so you may find other materials here that maybe of interest to you.

See this collection

Material learning outcomes

As a result of using these resources, you will have a clearer understanding of open educational resources and practices.

Course dates:

First Published 06/07/2017.

Updated 05/05/2023

Material content

Expand using open educational practices.

Open Educational Practices (OEP) are educational practices which promote and support equity and openness in education, with ‘open’ partly building on the freedoms associated with “the 5 Rs” of Open Educational Resources (OER) i.e. the ability to retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute content. 

This might mean student participation in activities involving open sharing of resources or knowledge, including co-creating OER or peer assessment in the open,  It can also include sharing teaching practices openly for teacher development and quality enhancement.

Expand Planning your open practice

• Your first steps in thinking about whether you want to create an open educational resource and how you would go about that, including guidance on identifying your audience / learners and on learning design.

Expand Create Open Educational Resources

Open Educational Resources  (OER) are courses or learning objects which are licenced openly and shared for anyone to use and reuse.

These articles provide some expert advice on creating your own open educational resources and the things you might consider when using or re-versioning your own or other people's existing materials.

You can  Search for OER  from around the world.

A template to list all the assets you include in your OER, including licence information

Expand How others have created or used open education

Find out how individuals, colleges, universities and organisations have created or used open educational resources or practices; or about policies to support them; in learning, teaching and research.

Creating and using open educational resources

Using open educational practices

The impact of open educational resources and practices.

Developing policies on open education

Creating open educational resources and courses, expand oep research.

There is a wide range of open education research on this site and on other sites, including the OER Research Hub .

Material Reviews

0 review for this material

This material is rated 0

Rate this material

• Sign up to join in

We invite you to discuss this subject, but remember this is a public forum.

Please be polite, and avoid your passions turning into contempt for others. We may delete posts that are rude or aggressive; or edit posts containing contact details or links to other websites.

Material reviews

Expand copyright information.

This material is made available under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 : Opening Educational Practices in Scotland Project

Any third-party materials featured in this material are used with permission and are not ours to give away. These materials are not subject to the Creative Commons licence. See the terms and conditions and our FAQs . Please see the material acknowledgements for further information about copyright details.

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Have a question?

If you have any concerns about anything on this site please get in contact with us here.

Report a concern

Share this material

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+
• Share by email

Open Education Resources (OER) - Faculty Tools

• Introduction
• Frequently Asked Questions About OER
• Pros and Cons of OERs
• OER Evaluation Criteria
• Exploring Textbooks
• Other Materials
• What is Creative Commons?
• OER Research, Reports, Case Studies and More
• Questions? Ask a Librarian

O pen Educational Resources Movement Welcomes Growing Pains

a letter to the Editor of the Chronicle of Higher education, by David Wiley, Chief Academic Officer, Lumen Learning. (Apr 2-17). Excerpt of letter.... early majority of faculty who want to adopt OER need more and different levels of support compred to the support the movement has provided to innovators and early adopters for the last decade an a half. The many efforts now underway to develop and provide this support are a natural response to this need. These latest growing pains are also worth navigating, as research indicates that OER adoption leads to drastically reduced textbook costs and the same -  or better -- academic outcomes like course completion and grades.

TOOLS TO ASSIST YOU

Learning Portal Toolkit - Ontario College Libraries  -  Open Educational Resources (OER) provide equal access to resources at no cost to students. This toolkit provides information and tools to help faculty and library staff across all publicly funded colleges in Ontario to understand, engage with, and sustain OER in their work and practice. 

Case Studies

Student PIRGs Open Textbook Reports -  The student PIRGs has been a leader in research on textbooks for more than a decade, starting with the release of "Ripoff 101" in 2004. This link is to the chronological list of reports and research the Student PIRGs has published on textbooks. 

Open Education Group Review Project -   Conducts and publishes original research on costs, efficacy, and adoption of OER. Links to a bibliography of OER articles and dissertations  auhored  by researchers affiliated with the project. Primary researchers are Lane Fisher, John Hilton III, and David Wiley (all represented in the bibliography).

Reports on OER

Given the recent interest in open educational resources, the research landscape in this field is constantly changing. We've compiled a selective list of articles covering a variety of OER-related topics, most of which are accessible online. 

Why OER is Important

Jensen, Kristi & Shane Nackerud, Eds. " The Evolution of Affordable Content Efforts in the Higher Education Environment: Programs, Case Studies, and Examples ." Pressbooks.com 

Highly informative source of OER intiatives and success stories of OER in higher education.

Perception and Awareness

Allen, Elaine I., and Jeff Seaman. " Opening The Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-2016 ." Babson Survey Research Group (2016). Web.

"Most higher education faculty are unaware of open educational resources (OER) – but they are interested and some are willing to give it a try.  Survey results, using responses of over 3,000 U.S. faculty, show that OER is not a driving force in the selection of materials – with the most significant barrier being the effort required to find and evaluate such materials.  Use of open resources is low overall, but somewhat higher for large enrollment introductory-level courses ." - Executive Summary

"Open Educational Resources (OER) and the Evolving Higher Education Landscape"  Cengage Learning (2016). Web.

"Open Educational Resources are undoubtedly here to stay, and they can add variety,  quality, and depth to the educational resources pool — at lower cost. But given the  myriad OER options available from equally myriad sources — and the time and energy  required to find, organize, and integrate them into higher education courses — “open”  doesn’t necessarily mean “free.” Expect incumbent education and technology companies  such as Cengage Learning to embrace the movement and apply their content knowledge,  cutting-edge learning technology platforms, and services expertise to create value-added  digital solutions that help institutions use OER to its best advantage." -  Conclusion

Armellini, Alejandro, and Ming Nie. " Open Educational Practices For Curriculum Enhancement ." Open Learning 28.1 (2013): 7-20.  Academic Search Premier. Web.

Reports on open educational practices (OEP) and the adoption and adaptation of OER in UK universities. Suggests ways institutions can support the use and creation of OER, with the goal of making OER adoption more sustainable and widespread.

Bliss, T.J., John Hilton III, David Wiley, and Kim Thanos. " The Cost and Quality of Online Open Textbooks: Perceptions of Community College Faculty and Students ." First Monday, 18.1 (2013): n. pag. Web.

Studied satisfaction rates and perceptions of OER in a community college population. Generally, the open textbooks used in this study were well received, but issues with technology or flawed OER texts result in negative perceptions by students.

Feldstein, Andrew, Mirta Martin, Amy Hudson, Kiara Warren, John Hilton III, and David Wiley. " Open Textbooks And Increased Student Access And Outcomes ." European Journal Of Open, Distance And E-Learning 2 (2012): ERIC. Web.

Core business courses at Virginia State University replaced traditional textbooks with OER content, resulting in more students accessing the textbook (compared to sales of hard copies) and higher grades. Students surveyed reported very high satisfaction with OER materials.

Fischer, Lane. John Hilton III, T. Jared Robinson, and David Wiley. " A Multi-Institutional Study of the Impact of Open Textbook Adoption on the Learning Outcomes of Post-Secondary Students ." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 27.3 (December 2015): 159-172. Web.

Research study across multiple institutions on the efficacy of OER materials in undergraduate classes. Students assigned to OER materials had more favorable outcomes in several areas including course completion rates, course grades, and enrollment in future courses.

Pawlyshyn, Nancy, Dr. Braddlee, Linda Casper, and Howard Miller. " Adopting OER: A Case Study of Cross-Institutional Collaboration and Innovation ." Educause Review. Educause (4 Nov. 2013): n. pag. Web.

Implementing OER in an underperforming first-year seminar at Mercy College (NY)  boosts student retention and learning. Faculty collaboration, excitement, and innovation are credited with a successful and quick implementation. Instructional design, assessment, implementation issues, and recommendations are discussed .

Cost savings

Hilton III, John, and Carol Laman. " One College’s Use Of An Open Psychology Textbook ." Open Learning 27.3 (2012): 265-272. Academic Search Premier. Web.

Students using OER outperformed peers using traditional course materials in an introductory psychology class at Houston Community College. Thorough discussion of cost savings for community college students when OER materials are adopted.

Hilton III, John, T. Jared Robinson, David Wiley, and J. Dale Ackerman. " Cost-Savings Achieved in Two Semesters Through the Adoption of Open Educational Resources ." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15.2 (2014). Web.

Students enjoyed significant savings in eight colleges where OER materials were used. Study data and comparisons to traditional textbook prices are examined.

Creation and Publication

Sutton, Shan C., and Faye A. Chadwell. " Open Textbooks At Oregon State University: A Case Study Of New Opportunities For Academic Libraries And University Presses ." Journal Of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication 4.4 (2014): 34-48. Academic Search Premier. Web.

A joint undertaking in open textbook authorship and publishing between Oregon State University Libraries and OSU’s Extended Campus (eCampus). Article highlights issues of libraries as content creators/managers, the role of the OSU Press, adoption of OER materials, and next steps for the project moving forward. Authors recommend inter-institutional collaboration in creating OER texts to avoid duplication of effort and to reach the most users.

• << Previous: What is Creative Commons?
• Next: Questions? Ask a Librarian >>
• Last Updated: Apr 17, 2023 11:21 AM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/c.php?g=873990

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

• Kelvin Smith Library

Guide to Open Educational Resources (OER): Home

• Research Guides
• Guide to Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Open Educational Resources (OERs)
• Open Textbooks
• Open Courseware
• Open Multimedia
• Open Source Software
• Open Datasets
• Find Open Access Articles
• Find Open Access Books
• Find Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• COVID 19 Resources This link opens in a new window

Engineering Librarian

What are Open Educational Resources (OER)?

" Open Educational Resources 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 repurposing by others. OER include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge ." ( William and Flora Hewlett Foundation )

The OERs license allows:

• Retain - the right to make, own, and control copies of the content (e.g., download, duplicate, store, and manage)
• Reuse - the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video)
• Revise - the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
• Remix - the right to combine the original or revised content with other material to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
• Redistribute - the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend)
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Free Multimedia
• Open Access Publications

How to use OERs?

• Adopting OERs in the Classroom "This course provides faculty with an introduction to the laws that influence the use, re-use, and distribution of content they may want to use in a course."
• The OER Starter Kit Published by Iowa State University, the kit provides instructors with an introduction to the use and creation of open educational resources (OER).
• Next: Open Educational Resources (OERs) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 10:44 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.case.edu/oer

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 13 October 2023

Are open educational resources (OER) and practices (OEP) effective in improving learning achievement? A meta-analysis and research synthesis

• Ahmed Tlili   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1449-7751 1 ,
• Juan Garzón   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0374-8570 2 ,
• Soheil Salha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2791-9925 3 ,
• Ronghuai Huang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4651-5248 1 ,
• Lin Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5426-1570 1 ,
• Daniel Burgos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0498-1101 4 ,
• Mouna Denden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0035-3490 5 , 6 ,
• Orna Farrell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-2380 7 ,
• Robert Farrow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7625-8396 8 ,
• Aras Bozkurt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-642X 9 ,
• Tel Amiel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1775-1148 10 ,
• Rory McGreal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-0921 11 ,
• Aída López-Serrano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9008-7960 4 &
• David Wiley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-4744 12  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  20 , Article number:  54 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

5868 Accesses

5 Citations

43 Altmetric

Metrics details

While several studies have investigated the various effects of open educational resources (OER) and open educational practices (OEP), few have focused on its connection to learning achievement. The related scientific literature is divided about the effects of OER and OEP with regards to their contribution to learning achievement. To address this tension, a meta-analysis and research synthesis of 25 studies ( N  = 119,840 participants) was conducted to quantitatively investigate the effects of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement. The analysis included course subject, level of education, intervention duration, sample size, geographical distribution, and research design as moderating variables of the obtained effects. The findings revealed that OER and OEP have a significant yet negligible ( g  = 0.07, p  < 0.001) effect. Additionally, the analysis found that the obtained effect can be moderated by several variables, including course subject, level of education and geographical distribution. The study findings can help various stakeholders (e.g., educators, instructional designers or policy makers) in understanding what might hinder OER and OEP effect on learning achievement, hence accommodating better learning outcomes and more effective interventions.

Introduction

Open educational resources and practices.

The term Open Educational Resources (OER) was first coined at UNESCO’s 2002 Forum on Open Courseware, and it was defined in the recent UNESCO Recommendation on OER as “learning, teaching, and research materials in any format and medium that reside in the public domain or are under copyright that have been released under an open license that permit no-cost access, reuse, repurpose, adaptation, and redistribution by others” (UNESCO,  2019 ). Several studies have then reported the advantages of OER in reducing learning costs (Hilton, 2016 ), increasing accessibility to educational resources even for students with disabilities (Zhang et al., 2020a ), and enhancing learning quality (Yuan & Recker, 2015 ; Weller et al., 2015 ; Zhang et al., 2020b ). Wiley ( 2014 ) further outlined five key characteristics, also known as the 5Rs, of using OER, namely: (1) retain—each person has the right to make and own copies of the published resource; (2) reuse—each person has the right to use the educational resources content in different ways depending in the learning context (e.g., formal or informal learning); (3) revise—each person has the right to revise the educational resource for different purposes (e.g., adapting it to a learning context or enhancing it); (4) remix—each person has the right to create a new educational resource by combining one or more learning contents together; and (5) redistribute—each person has the right to share with others copies of the original revised or remixed educational resource. The 5Rs can support innovation in teaching and learning since OER can be created, used, shared and repurposed differently to traditional copyrighted educational materials.

Building on the idea of innovation in educational resources and the idea of openness in education (Bozkurt et al., 2023 ), the Open e-Learning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) functions as a Transversal Action under the European eLearning Programme and is committed to advancing the creation, sharing, and global utilization of OER (OLCOS, 2007 ). In 2007, OLCOS conducted a roadmap study that emphasized the significance of integrating innovative teaching methods with OER (OLCOS, 2007 ). The project underscores that merely delivering OER within traditional teacher-centered frameworks might not sufficiently prepare individuals for educational success. It advocates for the incorporation of innovative educational practices alongside OER, and notably introduced the concept of Open Educational Practices (OEP). Based on this perspective, OEP can be defined as OER-enabled pedagogies, or “the set of teaching and learning practices that are only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions which are characteristic of OER” (Wiley & Hilton III, 2018 , p. 135; cf. Bali et al., 2020 ). Ehlers ( 2011 , p. 4) defined OEP as “practices which support the (re)use and production of Open Educational Resources through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning paths.” In a comprehensive review, Huang et al. ( 2020 ) identified five dimensions for the possible implementation of OEP, namely: OER, open teaching, open collaboration, open assessment and facilitating technologies. Some research suggests that these practices can help enhance learning quality, access, and effectiveness in universities. With the positive potential of OER and OEP in education, their adoption in education has rapidly increased for the past years. A significant moment in the history of open education came with the UNESCO ( 2019 ) Recommendation on OER which provides strategic policy support for the uptake and monitoring of OER. Accordingly, the UNESCO recommendation calls upon member states to develop national policies for the adoption of OER, which include activities, such as creating guidelines and strategies to incorporate OER within educational institutions or facilitating the generation and sharing of OER materials among educators. This recommendation draws considerable attention and investments to OER and OEP projects without certainty about their positive effects. At present, with the great potential of OER and OEP in education, a majority who remain unaware of the transformative potential of open practice; some educators consider OEP to be one of the most significant teaching forms of the twenty-first century (Shear et al., 2015 ) while others are oblivious of its existence. It is also important to note that OEP is not an orthodoxy so much as a concept that can be realized in a multitude of different ways.

Research gap and study objectives

Dotson and Foley (2017) emphasized that changing the curriculum content (i.e., from proprietary to open) does not produce a change in students’ learning achievement. Harvey and Bond ( 2022 ) also argued that there is a need to investigate if a change in the learning content licensing has an impact on students’ learning achievement. Despite a growing body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of OER and OEP in learning, open research studies have focused on other variables (e.g., affordability, accessibility). Less attention has been paid to whether OER and OEP can enhance students’ learning achievement compared to traditionally copyrighted materials (Robinson, 2015 ). For instance, Hilton ( 2016 ) conducted a systematic review of articles focusing on OER issues and learning achievement and perception, written between 2002 and August of 2015. The researcher found that only seven of sixteen studies focused on learning achievement. The researcher conducted another systematic review of twenty-nine OER-focused articles, written between September 2015 and December 2018, and only nine new learning achievement studies were obtained (Hilton, 2020 ). This reflects the decline in attention being paid to OER/OEP and learning achievement since 2002. Moreover, the literature about the effects of OER and OEP in enhancing students’ learning achievement is divided, where some studies reported positive effects (e.g., Colvard et al., 2018 ), no effects (e.g., Fortney, 2021 ; Grissett & Huffman, 2019 ) or even negative effects (e.g., Gurung, 2017 ), implying that some students who used traditionally copyrighted materials had better effects than those who used OER.

The question of the relative efficacy of OER or OEP remains open. The main rationale, therefore for this study, is to examine whether or not OER and OEP can enhance learning achievement. Two systematic reviews (Hilton, 2016 , 2020 ) attempted to investigate the above-mentioned phenomenon, however they were purely qualitative. The results from these two reviews did not effectively reveal the effects of OER and OEP on learning achievement. One study by Clinton and Khan ( 2019 ) conducted a meta-analysis related to this topic, however it investigated only the effect of open textbooks on post-secondary students’ learning achievement in the USA and Canada. Consequently, the previously obtained results do not reflect a comprehensive and an in-depth investigation of the effect of OER and OEP on learning achievement.

This present investigation aims at a more in-depth coverage of the current literature by including a range of types of OER (e.g., textbooks, videos, etc.) in many countries and at many educational levels. Smith ( 2013 ) highlighted the importance of researching improvements in achievement and attainment of OER, urging for further investigation into interventions that could result in significant enhancements in educational outcomes. In the same vein, Hilton ( 2020 ) has further suggested conducting sophisticated meta-analyses, where effect sizes across studies are calculated, to understand the measurable effect of OER on learning achievement. In response, this study employs a systematic analysis of the OER/OEP literature to comprehensively investigate whether the data supports the hypothesis that the use of OER and OEP can improve students’ learning achievement in a range of subjects. Therefore, to address this research gap, this study consisted of a meta-analysis and research synthesis of the relevant literature to provide quantitative evidence on the effects of OER and OEP on learning achievement. Meta-analysis, utilizing statistical methods, was employed to accurately measure the effect of a given intervention and the associated moderators of this effect (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001 ).

Additionally, several studies reported that the effects of OER and OEP on learning achievement might vary due to different confounders, such as demographic information, the type of the course delivered, educational level (grade), intervention duration, among others (e.g., Hilton, 2016 , 2020 ). Therefore, the present study takes a forward step towards analyzing if these variables might moderate the effect of OER and OEP on learning achievement. Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

RQ1. What is the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement?

RQ2. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to the educational subject?

RQ3. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to the educational level?

RQ4. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to the intervention duration?

RQ5. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to the sample size?

RQ6. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to geographical distribution of students?

RQ7. How does the effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement vary according to the research design?

Methodology

This study identifies the effects of using OER and OEP on learning achievement through meta-analysis. To secure the selection of the most relevant literature to be meta-analyzed, the researchers of the current study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ). Additionally, the researchers followed recommendations outlined by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 ). This procedure suggests three stages, namely: planning, conducting, and reporting the review. Although these guidelines were originally proposed for conducting systematic reviews, they have been successfully employed in meta-analyses (e.g., Garzón et al., 2019 ). All the processes related to the selection and codification of the studies were carried out by two coders.

Planning the review

To ensure having only relevant studies (recall) within this meta-analysis, hence obtaining a high precision rate (Ting, 2010 ), “open educational resources” and “open educational practices” were used as search keywords. Particularly, the term abbreviations, namely OER and OEP, were not considered as search keywords because in scientific writings, the full name of a term is provided prior to using its abbreviation. The search process was undertaken in the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Taylor and Francis and ERIC. These databases were selected because they are popular in the field of educational technology (Bedenlier et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2023 ). ERIC, particularly, focuses on educational science, especially OER (Otto et al., 2021 ) and Scopus is known as the largest database for scholarly publications. The publication interval was from 2012 up to 2023. The starting year of 2012 was selected as the initial date because it marked the release of the “UNESCO Paris OER Declaration”, which urged governments to promote the use of OER, and called for publicly funded educational materials to be released in a freely reusable form. As a result, several OER initiatives were launched worldwide which catalyzed the development of the OER field. Due to the novelty of the topic, conference papers and doctoral dissertations were considered to be included into the research corpus, as suggested by several studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2020 ; Denden et al., 2022 ).

The search was conducted on April 4, 2023, at which date, researchers were able to identify 643 studies (Web of Science: 117, Scopus: 38, Taylor and Francis: 262, and ERIC: 226). After eliminating duplicates ( n  = 324), a total of 319 publications were selected for further analysis. The first filter was based on each article’s title and keywords. This process allowed us to identify and remove 75 papers that were not relevant to the purpose of this present study. Then, the abstract of the remaining 244 papers was read and analyzed comprehensively. This process allowed us to remove 135 papers that were not relevant. Finally, we analyzed the remaining 109 studies based on the following criteria: (1) empirical studies, (2) studies that specifically used OER or OEP, (3) studies that provided sufficient information (i.e., mean, median, standard deviation) to calculate the effect size.

Therefore, a study was excluded if (1) it was not empirical research, (2) it did not focus on using OER or OEP, (3) it was qualitative or review research, (4) it did not provide sufficient information to calculate the effect size, or (5) it was not written in English. This process limited the corpus for investigation to 25 papers (23 journal papers, 1 conference paper and 1 PhD dissertation) to be further examined and included in the analysis. At the end of this process, the reference section of each paper was then reviewed. However, this process did not provide additional studies. Figure  1 shows the PRISMA flowchart (Page et al., 2021 ) of the study selection process, where inter-rater reliability in each phase was above 0.7, which is considered very good (Cohen, 1960 ).

PRISMA flowchart for the search protocol

Conducting the review

This stage included the coding scheme for the data extraction process. In an effort to minimize the potential for bias, an online electronic data extraction form was designed (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). To answer the aforementioned research questions, the following information in each study was coded: (1) OER type: The type of resource used for teaching, such as textbooks, videos, etc.; (2) course subject: the subject that was taught when using OER and OEP, such as mathematics, psychology, etc.; (3) educational level: the student grade in which OER and OEP were used, such as primary, bachelors, etc.; (4) the length of time over which OER and OEP were used (i.e., course duration); (5) sample size: the number of participants in each study. According to Cheung and Slavin ( 2016 ), the sample size was divided into small, where the number of participants is less than or equal to 250, and large, where the number of participants is larger than 250; (6) region: the region (country) where the experiment was conducted; and (7) research design: the followed research design when conducting the experiment.

Calculation of the effect size

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.4 (Borenstein, 2022 ) software was used to conduct the present meta-analysis. Additionally, Hedges’ g was used to calculate the effect sizes (Hedges, 1981 ). The motivation behind using Hedges’ g instead of Cohen’s d effect size was that the differential sample size between studies may bias the estimated effect size. This bias affects studies having a sample size smaller than 20, in which case Hedges’s g presents more reliable estimates than Cohen’s d (Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ). Eleven studies followed the pretest–posttest-control (PPC) research design. In this research design, students are randomly assigned to experimental and control treatments and are evaluated before and after the treatment. As stated by Morris ( 2008 ), this design provides better results regarding the accuracy of d values and control of threats to internal validity. The remaining fourteen studies, on the other hand, followed the posttest only with control (POWC) design, where students are assigned to experimental and control treatments and assessed only once, after the treatment (i.e., learning using OER or OEP).

According to the guidelines provided by Thalheimer and Cook ( 2002 ) for interpreting effect size, an effect size is negligible if − 0.15 <  g  < 0.15; small if 0.15 ≤  g  < 0.40; medium if 0.40 ≤  g  < 0.75; large if 0.75 ≤  g  < 1.10; very large if 1.10 ≤  g  < 1.45; and, huge if 1.45 ≤  g . Additionally, to test if there was any heterogeneity in the variation of effect sizes within the reviewed studies, Q and I 2 were evaluated (Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2019 ). Specifically, a preplanned analysis was conducted to investigate if the field of education, the level of education, or the learning setting influenced the overall average effect size.

Publication bias

Three methods were used to assess publication bias: classic Rosenthal’s fail-safe N, Orwin’s fail-safe N, and the trim-and-fill method. Rosenthal’s (1979) fail-safe number aims to determine the number of studies with nonsignificant results of unpublished data needed to nullify the mean effect size. A fail-safe number larger than 5 k  + 10 (where k is the original number of studies included in the meta-analysis) is robust. This means that the effect size of unpublished studies is not likely to affect the average effect size of the meta-analysis. However, this method assumes that the mean effect size in the missing studies is zero (Borenstein et al., 2021 ). To overcome this issue, Orwin ( 1983 ) proposed a more stringent method to identify how many missing studies would bring the overall effect to a specific non-zero value. This method permits selecting a value that represents the smallest effect of substantive importance and identifying how many missing studies it would take to bring the overall effect below this value. Alternatively, the trim-and-fill method was proposed by Duval and Tweedie (2000) with the intention of identifying publication bias by means of a funnel plot wherein the studies are represented by dots. If the dots are distributed on both sides of a vertical line representing the average effect size, there is no publication bias. Conversely, if most of the dots are located at the bottom of the funnel or on one side of the vertical line, publication bias is present (Borenstein et al., 2010 ).

Description of the included sample

Table 1 presents the included 25 studies in this present meta-analysis. Most of the studies ( n  = 19) were conducted with bachelor students. Additionally, OER and OEP were used mostly to teach psychology ( n  = 6), mathematics ( n  = 5) or also varied courses ( n  = 6). Among the 25 studies, 10 studies used small sample size (less than or equal to 250) and 15 studies used large sample size (larger than 250). Hedges’s g was also calculated. A positive Hedges’s g indicates that students using OER and OEP had better achievement than those who used traditionally copyrighted resources, and vice versa. Table 1 shows that 10 studies had negative Hedges’s g value.

Publication bias assessment

Borenstein et al. ( 2010 ) stated that a symmetric funnel plot—when the dots (studies) are distributed on both sides of the vertical line (combined effect size)—implies that there is no publication bias. However, if most of the dots are situated at the bottom of the funnel or on one side of the vertical line, there is publication bias. Figure  2 shows that the dots in this study are distributed symmetrically around the vertical line. Additionally, although some dots are outside the triangle of the funnel plot, most of them are in the upper part of Fig.  2 and not at the bottom. Therefore, it can be argued that the reliability of the present meta-analysis is not affected by publication bias.

Funnel plot of standard error by Hedges’ g

Overall effect size for learning achievement

The meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of g  = 0.07, p  < 0.001, indicating that OER and OEP had a negligible effect on students’ learning achievement (see Table 2 ). Specifically, Document ( g  = − 0.20; 95% CI  = − 0.14 to 0.10; n  = 1), Interactive (text) book ( g  = 0.13; 95% CI  = 0.11 to 0.15; n  = 18) and Interactive course ( g  = − 0.11; 95% CI  = − 0.14 to − 0.08; n  = 5) had a negligible effect on students’ learning achievement. Video ( g  = 0.20; 95% CI  = − 0.0.33 to 0.73; n  = 1) had a small effect on students’ learning achievement.

The I 2 statistic showed that 96.60% of variance resulted from between-study factors, implying that other variables might moderate the effect size of OER (as pointed out in the background of this study).

The forest plot presents the variation of effect size across the 25 included studies (see Fig.  3 ). The black square represents each study’s weighted effect size, where a larger square size implies a larger effect size. The arrow underneath each square (effect size) represents the confidence interval of the associated effect size. The overall mean effect size ( g  = 0.073) is presented at the last row of the forest plot. Interestingly, it is seen that almost half of the studies had a negative effect size with different confidence intervals, implying that the use of traditionally copyrighted materials had a better impact on learning achievement compared to the use of OER and OEP. This further explains the obtained negligible effect of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement (see Table 2 ).

A forest plot of the Hedge's g estimates and the confidence intervals of all studies

Effect sizes of learning achievement for moderator variables

Course subject.

Meta-regression was used to investigate any possible variations in the effect sizes of educational subjects (Liesa-Orus et al., 2023 ). According to Table 3 , the meta-regression result indicates that the course subject model is associated with the effect sizes of the learning achievement under OER as the p-value is 0.05 (Borenstein 2022 ). Moreover, the statistics of the subject indicate that using OER in history (p = 0.001) is likely to relate to the effect size. Specifically, the coefficient indicates that the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in history is 1.14 points higher than the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in psychology, with standard error 0.33 and a confidence interval 0.49–1.78. In other words, OER used in history is likely to have a significantly better effect on learning achievement than OER used in psychology.

Educational level

Meta-regression was used to investigate any possible variations in the effect sizes of educational level (Chaudhary & Singh, 2022 ). According to Table 4 , the meta-regression result indicates that the educational level model is associated with the effect sizes of the learning achievement under OER as the p-value is equal to 0.001 (Borenstein 2022 ). Moreover, the statistics of educational level indicate that using OER in professional development ( p  = 0.001) is likely to relate to the effect size. Specifically, the coefficient indicates that the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in professional development is 2.26 points higher than the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in bachelors, with standard error 0.48 and a confidence interval 1.31–3.20. In other words, OER used in professional development is likely to have a significantly better effect on learning achievement than OER used in bachelor.

Intervention duration

Meta-regression was used to investigate any possible variations in the effect sizes of intervention duration (Shi et al., 2023 ). According to Table 5 , the meta-regression result indicates that the intervention duration model is not associated with the effect sizes of the learning achievement under OER as the p-value is 0.99 (Borenstein 2022 ).

Sample size

Meta-regression was used to investigate any possible variations in the effect sizes of sample size (Cheung & Slavin, 2016 ). According to Table 6 , the meta-regression result indicates that the sample size model is not associated with the effect sizes of the learning achievement under OER as p-value is 0.08 (Borenstein 2022 ).

Geographical distribution

Meta-regression was used to investigate any possible variations in the effect sizes of the region (Liesa-Orus et al., 2023 ). According to Table 7 , the meta-regression result indicates that the region model is associated with the effect sizes of learning achievement under OER as p-value is 0.01 (Borenstein 2022 ). Moreover, the region statistics indicate that using OER in Asia (p = 0.001) is likely to relate to the effect size. Specifically, the coefficient indicates that the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in Asia is 1.01 points higher than the expected mean effect size for studies using OER in North America, with standard error 0.33 and a confidence interval 0.36–1.65. In other words, OER used in Asia is likely to have a significantly better effect on learning achievement than OER used in North America.

Research design

Meta-regression was used to explore any possible associations in the effect sizes of the research design (Geissbühler et al., 2021 ). According to Table 8 , the meta-regression result indicates that the research design model is not associated with the effect sizes of learning achievement under OER as p -value is 0.77 (Borenstein 2022 ).

Finally, to further investigate for possible covariance between confounding variables, a meta-regression that includes all of the individual confounding variables that yielded statistically significant results, namely subject, educational level and region, was conducted. Table 9 reveals that subject ( p  = 0.01) and educational level ( p  = 0.001) yielded a significant covariance between confounding variables.

Discussions

This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP) in relation to learning achievement. The analysis of 25 independent studies revealed that the impact of OER and OEP on learning achievement is generally negligible. These quantitative findings support the conclusions drawn from qualitative (Hilton, 2016 , 2020 ) and quantitative (Clinton & Khan, 2019 ) reviews that compare learning achievement between courses using open and commercial textbooks. Additionally, it is found that course subject, educational level and the region of students might moderate the effects of OER and OEP. The obtained findings of this study can be discussed and explained from the following perspectives.

Improvement in access does not imply improvement in learning achievement: a holistic design is needed

The use of OER and OEP is often considered an effective learning intervention due to its potential to provide equal access to educational resources for all students (Grimaldi et al., 2019 ). However, the results of this meta-analysis do not substantiate this hypothesis. Dotson and Foley (2017) also argue that the change of a curriculum content license from proprietary to open does not always lead to a change in students’ learning achievement. In other words, we cannot expect an improvement in learning achievement by simply changing the license of a given educational resource from proprietary to open. It requires a more comprehensive approach that involves changing not only the license, but also the used instructional approach, the way the educational resources are designed, etc. Based on the review of 25 included studies, it is found that ensuring an improvement in learning achievement is beyond the simple access to educational resources, and several elements should be considered, some of which are considered and discussed below, namely: OER quality, instructional, and learners’ individual factors.

OER quality

The quality of OER and effective implementation of OEP are crucial factors that significantly influence learning achievement. High-quality OER, characterized by accurate and up-to-date content, clear learning objectives, and appropriate instructional design, have been shown to positively impact student learning outcomes (Butcher, 2015 ). Learners who have access to well-designed OER that align with the curriculum and provide meaningful learning experiences are more likely to engage with the materials and effectively acquire knowledge and skills. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all OER resources meet the necessary standards of accuracy, coherence, and pedagogical effectiveness. Research has indicated significant variability in the quality of OER, resulting in inconsistent learning experiences and potentially limiting their impact on learning achievement (Weller, 2017 ). To address this, quality assurance processes, peer review, and evaluation mechanisms are essential to ensure that the content and resources meet established standards. While there was early skepticism and critique in regards to OER quality based on design and economic production models (see Kahle, 2008 ; Weller, 2010 ), there is nothing inherently different in regards to open and closed/proprietary content beyond the intellectual property rights. In other words, the quality criteria that apply to proprietary/closed resources also apply to OER and we should not expect quality differences in OER produced under the same production modes (e.g. by experienced publishers and designers). The results of this study indicate that no significant difference was found, which substantiates this assertion.

Instructional approach

Scoring improvements in learning achievement also depends on how students engage with OER and the effective implementation of OEP accordingly. On the one hand, despite the easy access to learning materials provided by OER, learners may not use them at all (Feldstein et al., 2012 ) or may not have sufficient time to engage with them (Westermann Juárez and Venegas Muggli, 2017 ). On the other hand, while OER offer the advantage of making learning more individualized, students may encounter a broader range of perspectives through OER but the content they learn may not align with objective measures of learning (Gurung, 2017 ). In the same vein, Zulaiha and Triana ( 2023 ) stated that a proper teaching method and learning strategy must accompany the OER to be effectively leveraged to improve students’ skills in order for OER to make a significant impact on the student learning. An older study by Slavin and Lake ( 2008 ) similarly found that the selection of instructional approach has a larger impact on learning achievement than the choice of curriculum content. Besides, numerous educators face challenges such as time constraints, insufficient skills and competences (e.g., digital), lack of understanding about what OER or OEP actually mean, and a lack of incentives to engage in open practices. Consequently, the widespread adoption of OEP remains limited, potentially hindering its impact on learning achievement (Tlili et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2020b ).

Learners’ individual factors

The impact of OER and OEP on learning achievement is influenced by individual learner characteristics, including prior knowledge and motivation. Tlili and Burgos ( 2022 ) emphasized the importance of providing personalized learning as students in open education might have different backgrounds and competencies. It is crucial to acknowledge that students may show diverse responses to open educational initiatives, and some may require extra support or guidance to fully reap the benefits of these resources. For example, studies have shown that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who may lack essential skills in effectively utilizing OER, tend to attain lower learning outcomes compared to their peers (Robinson, 2015 ). Thus, recognizing and addressing the diverse needs of learners is important in enhancing the impact of OER and OEP on learning achievement.

Adequate experimental design is crucial for accurately measuring learning achievement

Beyond the OER and OEP selection and implementation, the study indicates that the applied experimental design might hinder the accurate measurements of OER and OEP effects on learning achievement. Based on the 25 reviewed studies, it is found that most of the studies used quasi-experiments given that random assignments are not always possible in open education. As a result, this might hinder measuring the measurable effects of OER and OEP on learning achievement (Griggs & Jackson, 2017 ; Gurung, 2017 ).

Additionally, separating the effects of OER and OEP from other effects is also a challenge in the conducted experiments. Wiley ( 2022 ) described several ways in which research that purports to show the impact of OER adoption on student learning actually shows the impact of other interventions that are associated with OER adoption (e.g., when faculty receive support from an instructional designer to redesign a course after adopting OER). Pawlyshyn et al. ( 2013 ) also reported an improvement in learning achievement when OER was adopted simultaneously with flipped classrooms. However, it is not clear whether this improvement was due to the use of OER or flipped classrooms. OER are often employed alongside other interventions which can make isolating their effect methodologically problematic. This challenge of correlating improvements in learning achievement with the use of OER and OEP was also reported by other researchers (Griggs & Jackson, 2017 ; Gurung, 2017 ).

Most of the reviewed studies used final exam scores or GPA (grade point average) to measure the learning achievement of incorporating OER and OEP. However, this method is questionable as the designed exam may vary depending on the taught course subject and requirements, leading to a variation in the measured learning achievement. It is, therefore, recommended to use standardized instruments when measuring learning achievement using OER and OEP (Hendricks et al., 2017 ; Hilton, 2020 ). This normalization might lead to competence validation or even credit recognition through alternative credentials (e.g., Alternative Digital Credentials -ADC-), which is one of the open challenges around open education (Griffiths et al., 2022 ).

Confounding variables might lead to a variation of learning achievement

The present meta-analysis revealed that several confounding variables could affect the learning achievement of students when using OER and OEP. One of these variables is the course subject. This might be explained by the fact that some subjects have quality OER published online while others do not. For example, Lawrence and Lester ( 2018 ) highlighted a specific concern in the open content space for subjects like political science, which is the lack of available textbook options. Similarly, Choi and Carpenter ( 2017 ) found it challenging to find a suitable OER for their interdisciplinary Human Factors and Ergonomics course. The researchers discovered that OER for the Human Factors and Ergonomics course often provided in-depth content for individual topics, including extra information that is relevant to their subject of focus but not directly related to the course learning objectives. Furthermore, the limited number of OER options creates difficulties for instructors in applying some of their preferred pedagogical approaches.

The obtained findings also revealed that students’ geographic region can moderate the effect of OER and OEP on learning achievement. This could be explained with the fact that several regions, such as East Asia, have made remarkable progress in terms of raising awareness and adopting OER and OEP (Tlili et al., 2019 ), while others like the Arab region and sub-Saharan Africa are still behind (Tlili et al., 2020 , 2022 ). This might result in divided regions in terms of students’ perception and acquired competencies to use OER and OEP, hence having varied learning achievement across regions.

Conclusions, implications and limitations

This study included a meta-analysis and research synthesis to investigate the effects of OER and OEP on students’ learning achievement. This analysis describes how this effect is moderated across different variables (i.e., course subject, level of education, intervention duration, sample size and geographical distribution). As discussed above, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has conducted a similar analysis. Based on the findings, it can be argued that holistic OER learning design may be needed to optimize learning outcomes; that researchers should employ adequate experimental design when investigating the relationship between OER and learning achievement; and highlighted the potential role of confounding factors that can lead to a variation of learning achievement when using OER.

Implications

This study supports previous research in identifying no significant differences between the interventions using open and closed approaches (content or practice). This meta-analysis supports this conclusion following along existing literature on media/intermedia comparison studies (e.g. Clark, 1994 ; Salomon & Clark, 1977 ).

The conundrum for comparisons studies such as those included in this meta-analysis is thus: if a true experiment made to evaluate the influence of OER in learning achievement were to be designed, the only variable would be the OER itself, in other words, the intellectual property license of the content (considering this to be the defining characteristic of OER). If this were possible, one could only expect that the affordances of open licensing would possibly point to the effects of reduced cost or ease of access to relate to achievement (e.g., Fischer et al., 2015 ). But if this is done, it would offer us minimal new insights beyond what we already could expect, in principle. It stands to reason that not having access to resources designed to be part of a course would reduce achievement (a comparison on whether students actually did or did not access and make use of resources in the treatment and control condition is another study entirely).

However, the truly intriguing and critical questions pertain to practical applications. If we do allow practice to vary, for example: if the OER afforded some different sort of practice (as OEP is defined in OER-enabled pedagogy) then we are really measuring something more holistic—the practice which includes the resource. As Salomon and Clark ( 1977 , p. 102) conclude: “In short, when only the least significant aspects of instruction are allowed to vary, nothing of interest could, and did, result.”

This study then might point us to valuable avenues for further research. Perhaps course instructors and designers are attempting to faithfully replicate courses that make use of OER simply to test possible outcomes in achievement; here, clearly, we should expect no difference to emerge. Furthermore, instructors may not be really leveraging OER-enabled pedagogy or more expansive perspectives of OEP.

Additionally, this meta-analysis might help disencourage further comparison studies based on OER and achievement. It points us to the urgency of expanding the object of analysis beyond intrinsic characteristics of OER and focus on how principles of openness might significantly alter the nature of the practices and courses themselves, might lead to outcomes which are not measured simply by achievement gains, and additionally, might or might not cater to different types of students.

This present study can contribute to the literature from different perspectives. From a theoretical perspective, this study adds to the ongoing debate for the past twenty years about the effectiveness of OER and OEP by revealing what might moderate the effectiveness of OER and OEP. From a practical perspective, this study can contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2021 ), specifically SDG 4 quality education, by highlighting the different variables (i.e., quality, the used pedagogical approach, etc.) that different stakeholders (i.e., educators, instructional designers, etc.) should consider when adopting OER and OEP for better learning achievement. Finally, from a methodological perspective, this study contributes to the literature by pointing out various experimental criteria (i.e.., standardized measurements, design, etc.) that should be considered when designing research experiments to effectively measure the true effect of OER, hence providing more accurate results that could advance the field in this regard.

Limitations and future directions

It should be noted that the statistical power was not examined in this present meta-analysis, which is the case in the majority of published meta-analyses in the literature (Burçin, 2022 ; Dumas-Mallet et al., 2017 ; Thorlund & Mills, 2012 ). A significant barrier to the widespread implementation of statistical power in meta-analysis is the difficulty of understanding how it can be computed due to the various variables that should be considered in each study, as well as the heterogenicity of the conducted studies (Cafri et al., 2010 ; Ioannidis et al., 2014 ; Vankov et al., 2014 ). Additionally, there is a lack of an accessible and easy-to-use software or R script that can help to compute statistical power (Griffin, 2021 ; Thomas & Krebs, 1997 ). In this context, various software, such as G*power, have been developed to calculate statistical power for primary research, allowing for widespread implementation of power analysis in primary research (Faul et al., 2007 ). However, despite the similarity in procedure, such analogous software options do not exist for meta-analysis. Consequently, to calculate statistical power for a given meta-analysis, researchers must manually perform the calculations, use an online calculator, or utilize a user defined script (e.g., Cafri et al., 2009 ). These methods can be limited in functionality and difficult to integrate into a reproducible workflow (Griffin, 2021 ).

Besides, despite the reliability of the obtained results having been validated through the bias assessment, this study has some other limitations that should be acknowledged. For instance, the obtained results might be limited to the used keywords and electronic databases. Additionally, the obtained analysis was only based on courses conducted in English; non-English course studies might reveal different results. Moreover, while the present meta-regression yielded valuable insights about the effect of OER and OEP on learning achievement as well as the moderating variables of this effect, the limited sample size of the included studies might impact the generalizability of the findings. Therefore, future researchers are encouraged to complement this work by covering more databases and analyzing non-English courses, hence providing a more comprehensive view of OER and OEP effects. Additionally, this present meta-analysis did not consider teacher variables (e.g., same teacher or not when teaching using OER and non-OER materials) which could moderate the effects of OER and OEP on learning achievement (Hilton, 2020 ). Therefore, future studies could focus on this line of research. Finally, this present meta-analysis did not consider OER quality, which has been shown to have a significant impact on students’ learning outcomes (Butcher, 2015 ). Future research could systematically assess and incorporate OER quality as a moderating variable, hence further enhancing the understanding of the intricate relationship between OER and learning achievement. However, despite these limitations, this present study provided quantitative evidence about the OER and OEP effects on students’ learning achievement.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are presented within this study.

References with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the analysis

Allen, G., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Smith, A., Gamage, A., Molinaro, M., & Larsen, D. S. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of the open-access ChemWiki resource as a replacement for tr*aditional general chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16 (4), 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00084j

Article   Google Scholar  

Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565

*Basu Mallick D., Grimaldi P. J., Whittle J., Waters A. E., & Baraniuk R. G. (2018). Impact of OER textbook adoption on student academic outcomes. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Open Education Conference, Niagara Falls, NY.

Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36 , 126–150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477

Borenstein, M. (2022). Comprehensive meta-analysis software. In M. Egger, J. P. T. Higgins, & G. D. Smith (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health research: Meta-analysis in context (pp. 535–548). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119099369.ch27

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to Meta-Analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-209005-9.50005-9

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Bozkurt, A., Gjelsvik, T., Adam, T., Asino, T. I., Atenas, J., Bali, M., Blomgren, C., Bond, M., Bonk, C. J., Brown, M., Burgos, D., Conrad, D., Costello, E., Cronin, C., Czerniewicz, L., Deepwell, M., Deimann, M., DeWaard, H. J., Dousay, T. A., Ebner, M., Farrow, R., Gil-Jaurena, I., Havemann, L., Inamorato, A., Irvine, V., Karunanayaka, S. P., Kerres, M., Lambert, S., Lee, K., Makoe, M., Marín, V. I., Mikroyannidis, A., Mishra, S., Naidu, S., Nascimbeni, F., Nichols, M., Olcott. Jr., D., Ossiannilsson, E., Otto, D., Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., Paskevicius, M., Roberts, V., Saleem, T., Schuwer, R., Sharma, R. C., Stewart, B., Stracke, C. M., Tait, A., Tlili, A., Ubachs, G., Weidlich, J., Weller, M., Xiao, J., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2023). Openness in Education as a Praxis: From Individual Testimonials to Collective Voices. Open Praxis, 15 (2), 76–112. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.2.574

Burçin, Ö. N. E. R. (2022). Evaluation of statistical power in random effect meta analyses for correlation effect size. Sakarya University Journal of Science, 26 (3), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.1089793

Butcher, N. (2015). Basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Commonwealth of Learning (COL). https://doi.org/10.56059/11599/36

Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). A sas macro for statistical power calculations in metaanalysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.1.35

Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45 (2), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171003680187

Chaudhary, P., & Singh, R. K. (2022). A meta analysis of factors affecting teaching and student learning in higher education. Front. Educ., 6 , 824504. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.824504

Chen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., & An, H. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (4), 1769–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09801-5

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features of research studies affect effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 45 (5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615

*Chiorescu, M. (2017). Exploring open educational resources for college algebra. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (4), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3003

*Choi, Y. M., & Carpenter, C. (2017). Evaluating the impact of open educational resources: A case study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17 (4), 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0041

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088

*Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open textbook adoption. Open Learning: THe Journal of Open, Distance, and e-Learning, 33 (3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184

Clinton, V., & Khan, S. (2019). Efficacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5 (3), 2332858419872212. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872212

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

*Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Park, H. (2018). The impact of open educational resources on various student success metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30 (2), 262–276.

Google Scholar  

Denden, M., Tlili, A., Chen, N. S., Abed, M., Jemni, M., & Essalmi, F. (2022). The role of learners’ characteristics in educational gamification systems: A systematic meta-review of the literature. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2098777

Dumas-Mallet, E., Button, K. S., Boraud, T., Gonon, F., & Munafò, M. R. (2017). Low statistical power in biomedical science: A review of three human research domains. Royal Society Open Science, 4 (2), 160254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160254

Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning , 15(2), 1–10. http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/index

*Engler, J. N., & Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R. (2019). Facilitating student success: The role of open educational resources in introductory psychology courses. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18 (1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718810241

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

*Feldstein DPS, A. P., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Hilton III, J., & Wiley, D. (2012). Open textbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning . https://old.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2012&halfyear=2&article=533

Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27 (3), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x

Fortney, A. (2021). OER textbooks versus commercial textbooks: Quality of student learning in psychological statistics. Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4 (1), 4.

Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality, 23 (4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00379-9

Geissbühler, M., Hincapié, C. A., Aghlmandi, S., Zwahlen, M., Jüni, P., & da Costa, B. R. (2021). Most published meta-regression analyses based on aggregate data suffer from methodological pitfalls: A meta-epidemiological study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21 , 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01310-0

*Grewe, K., & Davis, W. P. (2017). The impact of enrollment in an OER course on student learning outcomes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.2986

Griffin, J. W. (2021). Calculating statistical power for meta-analysis using metapower. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology., 17 (1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.17.1.p024

Griffiths, D., Burgos, D., & Aceto, S. (2022), Credentialing learning in the European OER Ecosystem. Retrieved July, the 14th, 2023, from https://encoreproject.eu/2022/09/06/credentialing-learning-in-the-european-oerecosystem/

Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (2017). Studying open versus traditional textbook effects on students’ course performance: Confounds abound. Teaching of Psychology, 44 (4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317727641

Grimaldi, P. J., Basu Mallick, D., Waters, A. E., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2019). Do open educational resources improve student learning? implications of the access hypothesis. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212508

*Grissett, J. O., & Huffman, C. (2019). An open versus traditional psychology textbook: Student performance, perceptions, and use. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18 (1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718810181

*Gurung, R. A. (2017). Predicting learning: Comparing an open educational resource and standard textbooks. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3 (3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000092

*Hardin, E. E., Eschman, B., Spengler, E. S., Grizzell, J. A., Moody, A. T., Ross-Sheehy, S., & Fry, K. M. (2019). What happens when trained graduate student instructors switch to an open textbook? A controlled study of the impact on student learning outcomes. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18 (1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718810909

*Harvey, P., & Bond, J. (2022). The effects and implications of using open educational resources in secondary schools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23 (2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5293

Hedges, L. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6 (2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis . Academic Press.

MATH   Google Scholar  

*Hendricks, C., Reinsberg, S. A., & Rieger, G. W. (2017). The adoption of an open textbook in a large physics course: An analysis of cost, outcomes, use, and perceptions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (4), 78–99. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3006

Hilton, J. III. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64 (4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9

Hilton, J., III. (2020). Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015 and 2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (3), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4

*Hilton, J., III., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Williams, L. (2016). Maintaining momentum toward graduation: OER and the course throughput rate. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17 (6), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2686

*Hilton, J. L., III., Gaudet, D., Clark, P., Robinson, J., & Wiley, D. (2013). The adoption of open educational resources by one community college math department. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (4), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1523

Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments, 7 , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00125-8

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383 (9912), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8

*Jhangiani, R. S., Dastur, F. N., Le Grand, R., & Penner, K. (2018). As good or better than commercial textbooks: Students’ perceptions and outcomes from using open digital and open print textbooks. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning . https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.5

Kahle, D. (2008). Designing open educational technology. In T. Iiyoshi and M. S. Vijay Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 27–45). MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262515016/opening-up-education/

*Kelly, D. P., & Rutherford, T. (2017). Khan Academy as supplemental instruction: A controlled study of a computer-based mathematics intervention. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.2984

Kitchenham, B. A., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. (EBSE 2007–001). Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.

Konstantopoulos, S. P. Y. R. O. S., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). Statistically analyzing effect sizes: Fixed-and random-effects models. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 245–280). Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610448864.15

*Lawrence, C. N., & Lester, J. A. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of adopting open educational resources in an introductory American government course. Journal of Political Science Education, 14 (4), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2017.1422739

Liesa-Orus, M., Lozano Blasco, R., & Arce-Romeral, L. (2023). Digital Competence in University Lecturers: A Meta-Analysis of Teaching Challenges. Education Sciences, 13 (5), 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050508

*Medley-Rath, S. (2018). Does the type of textbook matter? Results of a study of free electronic reading materials at a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42 (12), 908–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1389316

Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (2), 364–386.

OLCOS. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources. Available online: https://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf

Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8 (2), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986008002157

Otto, D., Schroeder, N., Diekmann, D., & Sander, P. (2021). Trends and gaps in empirical research on open educational resources (OER): A systematic mapping of the literature from 2015 to 2019. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13 (4), ep325. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11145

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, D., Casper, L., & Miller, H. (2013). Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation. Educause Review. Accessed on May 20, 2023 from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-innovation .

*Robinson, T. J. (2015). The effects of open educational resource adoption on measures of post-secondary student success. Brigham Young University.

Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59

Salomon, G., & Clark, R. (1977). Reexamining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001099

Shear, L., Means, B., & Lundh, P. (2015). Research on open: OER research hub review and futures for research on OER. SRI International: Menlo Park, CA, USA.

*Shemy, N., & Al-Habsi, M. (2021). The effect of a Training Program based on Open Educational Resources on the Teachers Online Professional Development and their Attitudes towards it of AL-Dakhliya Governorate in Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Elearning and Knowledge Society, 17 (1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135283

Shi, W., Ghisi, G. L. M., Zhang, L., Hyun, K., Pakosh, M., & Gallagher, R. (2023). Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression to determine the effects of patient education on health behaviour change in adults diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 32 (15–16), 5300–5327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16519

Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78 (3), 427-515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317473

Smith, M. (2013). Ruminations on Research on Open Educational Resources. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved from https://hewlett.org/library/ruminations-on-research-on-open-educational-resources/

*Sulisworo, D., & Basriyah, K. (2021). Problem based learning using open educational resources to enhance higher order thinking skills in physics learning. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1783 (1), 012108. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1783/1/012108

Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research , 1(9).

Thomas, L., & Krebs, C. J. (1997). A review of statistical power analysis software. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 78 (2), 126–138.

Thorlund, K., & Mills, E. J. (2012). Sample size and power considerations in network meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-41

Ting, K. M. (2010). Precision and Recall BT—Encyclopedia of Machine Learning (C. Sammut & G. I. Webb (Hrsg.); S. 781). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_652

Tlili, A., Altinay, F., Huang, R., Altinay, Z., Olivier, J., Mishra, S., Jemni, M., & Burgos, D. (2022). Are we there yet? A systematic literature review of Open Educational Resources in Africa: A combined content and bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE, 17 (1), e0262615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262615

Tlili, A., & Burgos, D. (2022). Unleashing the power of Open Educational Practices (OEP) through Artificial Intelligence (AI): Where to begin? Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2101595

Tlili, A., Huang, R., Chang, T. W., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2019). Open educational resources and practices in China: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11 (18), 4867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184867

Tlili, A., Jemni, M., Khribi, M. K., Huang, R., Chang, T. W., & Liu, D. (2020). Current state of open educational resources in the Arab region: An investigation in 22 countries. Smart Learning Environments, 7 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00120-z

Tlili, A., Zhang, J., Papamitsiou, Z., Manske, S., Huang, R., Kinshuk, & Hoppe, H. U. (2021). Towards utilising emerging technologies to address the challenges of using Open Educational Resources: a vision of the future. Educational Technology Research and Development , 69 , 515-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09993-4

UN. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

UNESCO. (2019). Recommendation on Open Educational Resources . UNESCO: Paris, France. Accessible from: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-open-educational-resources-oer

Vankov, I., Bowers, J., & Munafò, M. R. (2014). Article commentary: On the persistence of low power in psychological science. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (5), 1037–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.885986

Wang, H., Tlili, A., Huang, R., Cai, Z., Li, M., Cheng, Z., Yang, D., Li, M., Zhu, X., & Fei, C. (2023). Examining the applications of intelligent tutoring systems in real educational contexts: A systematic literature review from the social experiment perspective. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11555-x

Weller, M. (2010). Big and Little OER. Open Ed, Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/10609/4851

Weller, M. (2017). The Development of New Disciplines in Education – the Open Education Example. https://oro.open.ac.uk/49737/

Weller, M., de los Arcos, B., Farrow, R., Pitt, B., & McAndrew, P. (2015). The Impact of OER on Teaching and Learning Practice. Open Praxis, 7 (4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.227

*Westermann Juárez, W., & Venegas Muggli, J. I. (2017). Effectiveness of OER use in firstyear higher education students’ mathematical course performance: A case study. In C. Hodgkinson-Williams & P. B. Arinto (Eds.), Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South (pp. 187–229). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.601203

Wiley, D. (2014). The Access Compromise and the 5th R [blog post]. Iterating toward openness. Improving Learning: Eclectic, Pragmatic, Enthusiastic. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221

Wiley, D. (2022). On the Relationship Between Adopting OER and Improving Student Outcomes. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/6949

Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L., III. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

*Winitzky-Stephens, J. R., & Pickavance, J. (2017). Open educational resources and student course outcomes: A multilevel analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (4), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3118

Yuan, M., & Recker, M. (2015). Not all rubrics are equal: A review of rubrics for evaluating the quality of open educational resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (5), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2389

Zhang, X., Tlili, A., Huang, R., Chang, T., Burgos, D., Yang, J., & Zhang, J. (2020b). A case study of applying open educational practices in higher education during COVID-19: Impacts on learning motivation and perceptions. Sustainability, 12 (21), 9129. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219129

Zhang, X., Tlili, A., Nascimbeni, F., Burgos, D., Huang, R., Chang, T. W., Jemni, M., & Khribi, M. K. (2020a). Accessibility within open educational resources and practices for disabled learners: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 7 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0113-2

Zulaiha, D., & Triana, Y. (2023). Students’ perception toward the use of open educational resources to improve writing skills. Studies in English Language and Education, 10 (1), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.25797

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Ahmed Tlili, Ronghuai Huang & Lin Xu

Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Católica de Oriente, Rionegro, Colombia

Juan Garzón

Faculty of Educational Sciences and Teachers’ Training, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

Soheil Salha

Research Institute for Innovation and Technology in Education (UNIR iTED), Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (UNIR), Logroño, Spain

Daniel Burgos & Aída López-Serrano

Univ. Polytechnique Hauts-de-France, LAMIH, CNRS, UMR 8201, 59313, Valenciennes, France

Mouna Denden

INSA Hauts-de-France, 59313, Valenciennes, France

Dublin City University (DCU), Dublin, Ireland

Orna Farrell

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Robert Farrow

Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

Aras Bozkurt

University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada

Rory McGreal

Lumen Learning and Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

David Wiley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author contributed evenly to this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Garzón .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tlili, A., Garzón, J., Salha, S. et al. Are open educational resources (OER) and practices (OEP) effective in improving learning achievement? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 20 , 54 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00424-3

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2023

Accepted : 26 September 2023

Published : 13 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00424-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Open educational resources
• Open educational practices
• Learning achievement
• Meta-analysis
• Meta-synthesis

• UNIVERSITY HOME
• Archives & Special Collections
• Art Collection
• Center for English Language Studies
• University Learning Center

Business Case Studies

Open educational resources.

• Copyright & Fair Use This link opens in a new window
• Business Cases These cases are provided by MIT Management Sloan School and Learning Edge.
• The Case Centre The Case Centre provides some free cases from various institutions like the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the Copenhagen Business School.
• Ethics Unwrapped "More than 50 case studies match ethics concepts to real world situations. From journalism to performing arts to foreign policy to scientific research to social work, these cases explore a range of current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences."
• Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS) The Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS) welcomes case studies designed for use in business and economics courses and articles related to the use of case studies in the classroom.
• LearningEdge (Cases from the MIT Sloan School of Management) "The teaching business case studies available on LearningEdge, which fall under the headings of entrepreneurship, leadership/ethics, operations management, strategy, sustainability, and system dynamics, are narratives that facilitate class discussion about a particular business or management issue. Teaching cases are meant to spur debate among students rather than promote a particular point of view or steer students in a specific direction."
• The New York Times Case Studies The New York Times has a case study library with over 150,000 cases available for use.
• Open Case Studies at University of British Columbia These open case studies were created by faculty and students at the University of British Columbia. While many of these case studies focus on sustainability, they feature a broad range of topics across disciplines.
• Stanford Business Case Studies Publicly available cases in this collection are distributed by Harvard Business Publishing and The Case Centre.
• The World Bank's "Doing Business" Case Studies "Doing Business case studies highlight the specific experience of an economy or region in improving important aspects of business regulation. They offer an insight into regulatory issues faced by policy makers, challenges they had to overcome, and the impact of their initiative."
• << Previous: Databases
• Next: Copyright & Fair Use >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 11:10 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.newschool.edu/businesscasestudy

Libraries, Collections, & Academic Services

• Archives & Special Collections

University Resources

• MyNewSchool
• Course Catalog
• Resources and Services A-Z
• Academic Calendar
• Libraries and Archives
• Faculty and Staff Directory
• Your Right to Know
• Harrassment, Discrimination & Title IX
• Shop The New Store
• Working at The New School
• Parsons School of Design
• Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts
• College of Performing Arts
• The New School for Social Research
• Schools of Public Engagement
• Parsons Paris
• Continuing and Professional Education

Copyright © 2023 The New School

• Privacy Notice

• Background to OER Hub

Case Studies

• Current Projects

About OER Hub

Publications.

• Presentations
• Infographics
• Open Courses
• Researchers Pack

The Open Education Research Hub (OER Hub) are leaders in researching the impact of open educational resources (OER) on teaching and learning practices. Our aim is to raise the quality and profile of research in this field. OER Hub has three key objectives:

• Building capacity in the OER research domain
• Conducting research into open education and OER
• Producing resources for the open education research community

The OER Hub is situated in the Institute of Educational Technology (IET), at The Open University (OU) in the UK. Both IET and the OU have built global reputations through a long history with open education, making this an ideal home for the OER Hub.

This section provides an overview of the type of research conducted by the OER Hub. The background to the Hub is set out, highlighting the Open University’s long engagement with OER.

We are always looking for partners and projects to work with. We use agile ways of working and strive to be flexible in how we work with collaborators to meet their needs. This means there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to working with us and the best way to proceed is usually to get in touch and go from there.

Here you will find listed publications from all the team, including research articles, book chapters and conference proceedings.

Research and Outputs

In this section you can find the various outputs from the OER Hub team across different projects. As well as academic publications and presentations, there are non-traditional outputs as well as openly licensed data from our research that others can use.

In this section you will find examples of collaborations and activities highlighting areas of research or data analysis carried out for key clients.

Recent posts

November 22nd, 2020 | 0 Comments

CFP: Research in Underexamined Areas of Open Educational Resources

November 1st, 2019 | 0 Comments

There's a new call for papers at https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/10988/research-in-underexamined-areas-of-open-educational-resources which may be of interest to readers of the blog. Part of the framing for this work is the need to transcend studies which concentrate on cost [...]

Report: Massive Open Online Courses for Employability, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

October 28th, 2019 | 0 Comments

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new report produced for the ECM-LM project. The European MOOC Consortium brings together higher education, MOOC platforms and representatives of public and private sectors in a [...]

Report: Bringing Learning to Life

October 23rd, 2019 | 0 Comments

Ahead of the forthcoming Open Education 2019 conference we are pleased to make available the report I will be presenting. Bringing Learning to Life: Evaluation of Everyday Skills in maths and English presents data collected [...]

Free Open Book: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) for Business Learning

February 5th, 2019 | 0 Comments

We are pleased to announce that we are making available a new open textbook which brings together key findings of the BizMOOC project. BizMOOC, which ended in December 2018, was a Knowledge Alliance project contributed [...]

#OWLTEH18 and #MozFest18

December 4th, 2018 | 0 Comments

Rob presents on UK Open Textbooks to #owlteh - photo by Daniel Villar October saw the Hub team head Stateside to present and contribute to #OpenEd18 in Niagara Falls, USA before rounding up the [...]

Open Educational Resources (OER): What is OER?

• Public Domain
• InclusiveAccess.org
• Open Textbooks
• Open Images
• Open Access Week Events 2020
• Open Video, Audio, & Software
• Creative Commons
• Faculty Select
• OER Research
• For Educators and Open Textbook Authors
• Affordable Learning Georgia
• No-Cost and Low-Cost Banner Attributes
• Open Education Week Events 2021
• Open Access Week Events 2021
• Open Access Week 2022

What are Open Educational Resources (OER)?

"Open Educational Resources 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 repurposing by others. OER include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge."  -- The Hewlett Foundation

Why Open Education Matters

Related Guides

• Linking to Articles
• Open Access Guide
• Copyright Guide

Links about what OER is

• Open Access vs. Open Educational Resources
• What is OER? from CC Wiki
• Understanding OER

Getting Started with Open and Affordable Course Content

• Faculty Select Faculty Select is your one stop shop for Open and Affordable Course Content. Try this step first!
• Getting Started with Open and Affordable Course Content Easily print on your color printer from this PowerPoint.. Choose: Landscape Print on both sides. Flip pages on short edge.

Quick Guide

• OER Infographic (Add your own contact and edit)-Word
• GSU Quick Guide to OERs-PDF
• GSU Library Quick Guide to OERs-Illustrator File

Recommended Books

Education Librarian

• Next: Public Domain >>
• Last Updated: May 31, 2024 4:12 PM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/openeducationalresources

• CSI Library Home
• CSI Library
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Research on OER
• Open licensing & citations

OER impact reports

Reasons to use oer, related research, publications by cuny faculty.

• OER by Discipline
• Virtual labs & simulations
• Creating OER
• Platforms and tools
• Zero Textbook Cost (ZTC)
• OER Accessibility Toolkit (CUNY) This link opens in a new window
• Grant Funding for Faculty OER Projects
• OER in Tenure and Promotion
• OER and Student Success, Retention, and Pedagogy

Organizations that research OER

• Open Educational Group
• A Comparison of Academic Outcomes in Courses Taught With Open Educational Resources and Publisher Content Bol, Linda ; Esqueda, Monica Christina ; Ryan, Diane ; Kimmel, Sue C Educational researcher, 2021-10-18, p.13189
• Practitioner Perspectives: The DOERS3 Collaborative on OER in Tenure and Promotion Published March 2, 2021 In the following Practitioner Perspective, Andrew McKinney, OER coordinator at the City University of New York (CUNY), and Amanda Coolidge, director of Open Education at BCcampus in British Columbia, Canada, share the development of an adaptable matrix to help faculty include OER (Open Educational Resources) in their tenure and promotion portfolios.

This list is presented in reverse chronological order. Subscription may be required in some cases.

The resources here were compiled by Stacy Katz and are available in list form .

2017 and before

• << Previous: Learn about OER
• Next: Finding OER >>

LinkedIn Facebook Instagram

• URL: https://library.csi.cuny.edu/oer
• Last Updated: Mar 24, 2024 4:02 PM

Advertisement

How to facilitate self-regulated learning? A case study on open educational resources

• Published: 19 April 2019
• Volume 7 , pages 51–77, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Tak-Lam Wong 1 ,
• Haoran Xie 2 ,
• Fu Lee Wang 4 ,
• Jeff Kai Tai Tang 4 ,
• Anthony Kong 5 &
• Reggie Kwan 6  

2077 Accesses

16 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper investigates the students’ self-regulated learning in elementary education when traditional teaching method, which is teacher centered in a classroom, is replaced with a blended approach enriched with open educational resources. Various open educational resources such as videos, simulations, and learning games are readily available on the Web. In addition, mobile and classroom technologies, such as portable devices can be considered as teaching tools in education. The good use of these educational resources and technologies can not only assist students’ formal classroom learning but also cultivate the self-regulated learning of students. The i -Classroom implemented in an elementary school adopted a new teaching method, which made use of the online educational resources and information technology, to achieve this goal. Three surveys (Sample size N  = 149, N  = 168, N  = 150) were conducted to investigate the effectiveness of promoting three key aspects of self-regulated learning: learning motivation, planning and management, and self-monitoring. Focus group interviewed was also carried out to collect the feedback in i -classroom learning. The results show that i -Classroom can help students to enhance their ability in self-regulated learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

Exploring autonomy support and learning preference in higher education: introducing a flexible and personalized learning environment with technology

www.moodle.org .

www.blackboard.com .

www.schoology.com .

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burden, P. (2016). Classroom management: Creating a successful K-12 learning community . New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Chen, C. M. (2009). Personalized E-learning system with self-regulated learning assisted mechanisms for promoting learning performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (5), 8816–8829.

Conradie, P. W. (2014). Supporting self-directed learning by connectivism and personal learning environments. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4 (3), 254–259.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33 (5), 513–540.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15 (1), 3–8.

Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2010). Benefits and challenges of OER for higher education institutions. Paper presented at the Open Educational Resources (OER) Workshop for Heads of Commonwealth Universities, Capetown, South Africa.

Kirkpatrick, R., & Zang, Y. (2011). The negative influences of exam-oriented education on Chinese high school students: Backwash from classroom to child. Language testing in Asia, 1 (3), 36.

Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.

Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56 (3), 133–146.

McKerlich, R. C., Ives, C., & McGreal, R. (2013). Measuring use and creation of open educational resources in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning . https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1573 .

Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in web-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (3), 1126–1144.

Newman, R. S. (1991). Goals and self-regulated learning: What motivates children to seek academic help? Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 151–183.

Newman, R. S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of adaptive help seeking. Theory Into Practice, 41 (2), 132–138.

Nikoi, S., & Armellini, A. (2012). The OER mix in higher education: Purpose, process, product, and policy. Distance Education, 33 (2), 165–184.

O’Donnell, E., Lawless, S., Sharp, M., & Wade, V. P. (2015). A review of personalised e-learning: Towards supporting learner diversity. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 13 (1), 22–47.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 385–407.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33.

Purdy, E., Thoma, B., Bednarczyk, J., Migneault, D., & Sherbino, J. (2015). The use of free online educational resources by Canadian emergency medicine residents and program directors. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17 (2), 101–106.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65 (2), 129–143.

Salili, F., & Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40 (1), 51–70.

Sharma, S., Dick, G., Chin, W. & Land, L. P. W. (2007). Self-regulated learning and e-learning. Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference onInformation Systems , pp. 383–394.

Shee, D. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education, 50 (3), 894–905.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2 (1), 3–10.

Truong, H. M. (2016). Integrating learning styles and adaptive e-learning system: Current developments, problems and opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1185–1193.

Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2 (1), 64–74.

Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (2), 151–163.

Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (3), 428–438.

Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1), 30–41.

Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (4), 5.

Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10 (3), 293–311.

Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G. J., & Paas, F. (2018a). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35, 356–373.

Wong, T. L., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., Tang, K. T., Kong, A., & Kwan, R. (2018b). Promoting self-regulated learning by online educational resources. In 2018 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 204–208). IEEE.

Yerdelen, S., McCaffrey, A., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Longitudinal examination of procrastination and anxiety, and their relation to self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: latent growth curve modeling. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16 (1), 5–22.

Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47 (5), 75–79.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3–17.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 51.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was partially supported by a grant from the RGC of the HKSAR, China (UGC/IDS16/15). Haoran Xie’s work in this paper has been supported by the Individual Research Scheme of the Dean’s Research Fund 2017–2018 (FLASS/DRF/IRS-8), Seed Fund (SFG-6), and Top-up Fund (TFG-3) for General Research Fund/Early Career Scheme of the 2018 Dean’s Research Fund to MIT Department of The Education University of Hong Kong. Di Zou’s work has been supported by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research, Education Bureau (EDB(LE)/P&R/EL/175/2) and the Funding Support to ECS Proposal Rated 3.5 (RG16/2018-2019R), The Education University of Hong Kong. A preliminary version of this article has been published in the 2018 International Symposium on Educational Technology (Wong et al. 2018b ). This article has been extensively rewritten and extended by adding sufficient new contents and findings according to regulations of the Journal of Computers in Education. The authors would also like to thank Miss Shirley Chan of S.T.W Dr. Catherine F. Woo Memorial School, Hong Kong, for her coordination and contribution.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computing Studies and Information Systems, Douglas College, New Westminster, Canada

Tak-Lam Wong

Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

School of Science and Technology, The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Fu Lee Wang & Jeff Kai Tai Tang

Department of Communication Design and Digital Media, Hong Kong Design Institute, Hong Kong, China

Anthony Kong

The Open University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Reggie Kwan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Di Zou .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Choose the best option in the following statement:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wong, TL., Xie, H., Zou, D. et al. How to facilitate self-regulated learning? A case study on open educational resources. J. Comput. Educ. 7 , 51–77 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00138-4

Download citation

Received : 15 November 2018

Revised : 24 January 2019

Accepted : 08 April 2019

Published : 19 April 2019

Issue Date : March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00138-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• SELF-regulated learning
• Open educational resources
• Learning motivation
• Planning and management
• Self-monitoring
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice

Javiera Atenas and Leo Havemann

The process of developing this book was a learning experience for us. We had no prior experience in independent publishing, but instead of going the traditional route of attempting to find a professional publisher, in the spirit of openness, we decided to self publish, and to make the entire process as open as possible. The intention of this book is to showcase good practices in an approachable way that can be understood by those who are not necessarily very familiar with open data or data analysis, in order to promote the use of open data as OER to educators, researchers and other organisations.

Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice is the outcome of a collective effort that has its origins in the 5th Open Knowledge Open Education Working Group call, in which the idea of using Open Data in schools was mentioned. It occurred to us that Open Data and open educational resources seemed to us almost to exist in separate open worlds.

We decided to seek out evidence in the use of open data as OER, initially by conducting a bibliographical search. As we could not find published evidence, we decided to ask educators if they were in fact, using open data in this way, and wrote a post for this blog (with Ernesto Priego ) explaining our perspective, called The 21st Century’s Raw Material: Using Open Data as Open Educational Resources . We ended the post with a link to an exploratory survey, the results of which indicated a need for more awareness of the existence and potential value of Open Data amongst educators.

A couple of months later, we spoke (along with William Hammonds ) at the 7th Open Education Working Group Call: Open Data as Open Educational Resources where we ‘set out our stall’ on this topic, and formalised the idea of collecting case studies to be published as an open book for educators. As ever, Marieke Guy did a wonderful job chairing the Working Group call and pushing the conversation forward by raising difficult questions. Meanwhile, we were invited by Antonio Moneo and Geraldine García , to publish our ideas in Spanish in the open knowledge blog of the Inter-American Development Bank.

The majority of the proposals we received were accepted as they fit the themes of the book, and yet each took a different angle on the subject matter. Some other authors who contacted us with with ideas which were not quite right for this project were able to find a home for them here on the OEWG blog instead.

As we started receiving the proposals we also decided to ask a group of experts if they were willing to join us to be part of a scientific committee overseeing the book of case studies, who would act as peer reviewers but, more than that, work alongside the authors and ourselves, towards developing the case studies within an open review model. The experts that joined with us, Marieke Guy , William Hammonds , Anne-Christin Tannhäuser , Maria Perifanou and Ernesto Priego , have a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and work experiences, but all share an interest in open educational practices and were happy to embrace the openness of the project. As soon as they started selecting the cases and working with the authors to develop the drafts, it became clear to us that we had been joined by a group of fantastic people – making the process much easier for all of us – as the authors and reviewers worked seamlessly in a spirit of mutual respect and admiration.

Because of the pivotal role they have played, we wanted to include the voices of the committee members overtly in the book, so we asked each of them for a reflection on both process and product. In her piece, Marieke comments that the result is a set of “ detailed and diverse case studies. They are cutting edge tales that show exciting efforts to try out something new, to experiment and to learn from the results” ; and for Will, the case studies illustrate the final challenge: “ supporting academics and teaching staff to develop their own skills and interests to use open data in this way.”

As we approached the finish line, our friend and colleague Santiago Martín joined us to act as designer. He made a great job of bringing a tonne of files in various different formats into OpenOffice, using an open font, and turning them into this book.

And so last, but certainly not least in the story of this book, we come to the case studies themselves. They have been provided by scholars and practitioners from different disciplines and countries, and they reflect different approaches to the use of open data. The first case study presents an approach to educating both teachers and students in the use of open data for civil monitoring via Scuola di OpenCoesione in Italy, and has been written by Chiara Ciociola and Luigi Reggi . The second case, by Tim Coughlan from the Open University, UK, showcases practical applications in the use of local and contextualised open data for the development of apps. The third case, written by Katie Shamash , Juan Pablo Alperin & Alessandra Bordini from Simon Fraser University, Canada, demonstrates how publishing students can engage, through data analysis, in very current debates around scholarly communications and be encouraged to publish their own findings. The fourth case by Alan Dix from Talis and University of Birmingham, UK, and Geoffrey Ellis from University of Konstanz, Germany, is unique because the data discussed in this case is self-produced, indeed ‘quantified self’ data, which was used with students as material for class discussion and, separately, as source data for another student’s dissertation project. Finally, the fifth case, presented by Virginia Power from University of the West of England, UK, examines strategies to develop data and statistical literacies in future librarians and knowledge managers, aiming to support and extend their theoretical understanding of the concept of the ‘knowledge society’ through the use of Open Data.

We believe the discussions raised by this book are useful in their own right, as wider engagement with, as well as transparency of, public knowledge, are in our view, very worthy aims for education. In addition, we believe that the use of Open Data as OER aids in the development of students’ transversal skills, that is, their literacies, numeracies and digital capabilities, allowing them to think and work as scientists and policy makers, in order to truly operate as global citizens.

This book has been made possible thanks to the support of many people. We would like to thank Paul Bacsich and Elena Stojanovska for supporting the continuation of this project and for their encouragement, and also our fellow OEP advocates at OKFN Edu , OpenEd SIG , OER Research Hub , ELESIG , Open Education Europe , School of Data , ILDA , and finally, our colleagues and friends at UCL and Birkbeck.

The book can be downloaded here  Open Data as Open Educational Resources

Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice, edited by Javiera Atenas and Leo Havemann. London: Open Knowledge, Open Education Working Group, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1590031

Tags: Open Data , Open Educational Practices , Open Educational Resources

10 responses to “Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice”

[…] can download the book under a CC-BY license here. You can also find out more about the book in this blog post by Javiera and Leo announcing the publication of the […]

[…] process of developing this book titled Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice was as brilliantly described by my fellow editor Leo Havemann as an unexpected journey, and as […]

[…] Sourced through Scoop.it from: education.okfn.org […]

[…] Book edited by Javiera Atenas and Leo Havemann: “…is the outcome of a collective effort that has its origins in the 5th Open Knowledge Open Education Working Group call, in which the idea of using Open Data in schools was mentioned. It occurred to us that Open Data and open educational resources seemed to us almost to exist in separate open worlds. […]

[…] Source: Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice | Open Education Working … […]

[…] Alan Dix, Geoffrey Ellis and Virginia Power  in early November 2015 we published a book called Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Case studies of emerging practice,  the process of editing and putting this book together has been described in the previous post […]

[…] If you are interested in learning more from ASOC’s experience, you can read a case study which includes the results of the 2014-2015 edition on Ciociola, C., & Reggi, L. (2015). A Scuola di OpenCoesione: From Open Data to Civic Engagement. In J. Atenas & L. Havemann (Eds.), Open Data As Open Educational Resources: Case Studies of Emerging Practice. […]

[…] A Scuola di OpenCoesione: From Open Data to Civic Engagement. In J. Atenas & L. Havemann (Eds.), Open Data As Open Educational Resources: Case Studies of Emerging Practice. […]

[…] Abriendo Datos Costa Rica and Giggap, have been working towards promoting openness and the use of Open Data for teaching and learning, by giving workshops for academics in Uruguay and Costa Rica. Also, A Scuola di Open Coesione in […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Written by Javiera Atenas

Co-coordinator of the Open Education Working Group and Education Lead at the Latin American Initiative for Open Data [ILDA]. Academic and researcher with interest in the use of Open Data as Open Educational Resources and in critical pedagogy. PhD in Education and senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy. @jatenas

• Search for:

Join the Open Education mailing list

Working group aims.

• Introducing UCL’s Open Education initiative August 21, 2018
• Changing Minds by Using Open Data June 26, 2018
• Learning Analytics Policy Development June 25, 2018
• Copyright Reform – CREATe Resources June 13, 2018
• Open Education in Spain June 5, 2018