Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 15, 2020
Accepted
Dec 23, 2020
Published
Dec 30, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 824 Download : 12566

Main Article Content

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review was to gain a deeper understanding of student experiences of open educational practices (OEP). The research was conducted against the backdrop of a small, publicly funded university in Canada that offers a masters-level program delivered largely though open learning environments. A systematic literature review identified both benefits and challenges to OEP, related to open learning digital environments, tools and activities as well as institutional services and supports. Students further experienced benefits in working with others, developing a sense of self, and increased learning engagement. They also reported challenges associated with anxiety and with practical aspects such as privacy, copyright, and time management. Much can be learned from research into existing collaborative and related educational practices that preceded concepts of OEP. The study recommends increased focus on scaffolding for faculty and students in the implementation of OEP, as well as more research into student experiences.

Keywords

Open Education Open Education Practices Student Experiences Systematic Literature Review

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Axe, J., Childs, E., DeVries, I., & Webster, K. (2020). Student experiences of Open Educational Practices: a systematic literature review. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(4), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135340

References

  1. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
  2. Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: Challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917703
  3. Baran, E., & AlZoubi, D. (2020) Affordances, challenges, and impact of open pedagogy: examining students’ voices. Distance Education, 41(2), 230-244, https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757409
  4. Banning, J. (2003, Feb. 27). Ecological triangulation: An approach for qualitative meta-synthesis. [Conference session]. Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Stockholm.
  5. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage.
  6. BC Campus. (2017). Webinar Series: Open Education Stories from Across B.C. https://open.bccampus.ca/2017/01/23/webinar-series-open-education-stories-from-across-b-c/
  7. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
  8. Conference Board of Canada. (2016). World outlook: Winter 2016. Retrieved from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/abstract.aspx?did=7693
  9. Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and Praxis: Exploring the use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
  10. Czerniewicz, L. (2017). Student practices in copyright culture: accessing learning resources. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160928
  11. Di Lauro, F., & Johinke, R. (2017). Employing Wikipedia for good not evil: Innovative approaches to collaborative writing assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1127322
  12. Haßler, B., & Mays, T. (2014). Open content. In P.H. Ang & R. Mansell (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/97811187 67771.wbiedcs154
  13. Harris, B., Walinga, J., Childs, E., Raby, J., Takach, G., Jorgensen, F., Mason, R., Zornes, D., Gorley, C., & Forssman, V. (2019). Cultivating change leaders for a better world: Learning teaching and research model. Royal Roads University.
  14. Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Paskevicius, M. (2012). The role of postgraduate students in co-authoring OEP to promote social inclusion: A case study at the University of Cape Town. Distance Education, 33(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.692052
  15. Gordon, L. (2017). Students as co-designers: Peer and instructional resources for novice users of ePortfolio. International Journal of EPortfolio, 7(2), 113–127. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159903
  16. Jones, M., & Regner, L. (2016). Users or students? Privacy in university MOOCS. Science & Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1473–1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9692-7
  17. Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., Löhr, A., Ragas, A., & Kalz, M. (2018). Student perception of scalable peer-feedback design in Massive Open Online Courses. In E. Ras & A. E. Guerrero Roldán (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Assessment (pp. 54–68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97807-9_5
  18. Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118(9), 1-26.
  19. Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017).Students as co-inquirers: A requisite theory in educational development. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1).
  20. Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824
  21. Parke, K., Marsden, N., & Connolly, C. (2017). Lay theories regarding computer-mediated communication in remote collaboration. Open Praxis, 9(1), 17–30. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=EJ1142907
  22. Paskevicius, M., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2018). Student perceptions of the creation and reuse of digital educational resources in a community development-oriented organisation. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(1), 22-39. Retrieved from https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/253
  23. Paskevicius, M. (2017). Conceptualizing open educational practices through the lens of constructive alignment. Open Praxis, 9(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.519.
  24. Paterson, B., Jehanne Dubouloz, C., Chevrier, J., Ashe, B., King, J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2009). Conducting Qualitative Metasynthesis Research: Insights from a Metasynthesis Project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3). Retrieved from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/ijqm/index.php/IJQM/article/view/5100
  25. Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2018). Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review. Communicar, 26(54)Retrieved from https://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/1047
  26. Rolfe, V. (2012). OEP: staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology, 20. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14395
  27. Stracke, C. M., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D., & Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs open educational resources?: A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Praxis, 11(4), 331-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1010
  28. Tur, G., Urbina, S., & Moreno, J. (2016). From OER to open education: Perceptions of student teachers after creating digital stories with Creative Common resources. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 7(2), 34–40. Retrieved from http://brain.edusoft.ro/index.php/brain/article/view/594
  29. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Rethinking literacy skills in a digital world. https://en.unesco.org/news/rethinking-literacy-skills-digital-world
  30. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . (2002). Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries. Final Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000128515
  31. Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1078
  32. Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I., & Rolfe, V. (2018). Mapping the open education landscape: citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126. https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.822