IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Developing an Open Educational Resource and Exploring OER-Enabled Pedagogy
in Higher Education
Beth Tillinghast
University of Hawaii at Manoa
United States

159

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Abstract
There is a growing trend in higher education to explore the various benefits of Open
Educational Resources. This applies not only to the cost benefits, but also to potential
pedagogical benefits as well. This study explores the process of developing and implementing
an Open Educational Resource for an undergraduate course and experimenting with OERenabled pedagogy. Interview data provide an account of this process, outlining challenges andhighlighting insights, which might prove useful for other professionals contemplating the movetoward developing Open Educational Resources. Interview data are also organized using theUnified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology constructs pertaining to attitude,
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, technology self-efficacy, andfacilitating conditions. A qualitative interpretive approach was then used to analyze the data.
Analysis indicates that most of the constructs can strongly influence faculty to adopt Open
Educational Resources but that “social influence” has no effect on adoption. Findings also
include reflections on OER-enabled pedagogy as it was applied in the course. These findings
indicate that OER-enabled pedagogy has the potential for increasing student engagement,
though this potential has not yet been realized. Finally, findings provide an outline ofrecommendations that might guide others when considering developing and implementing
Open Educational Resources.
Keywords: Open Educational Resources, OER-enabled pedagogy, UTAUT; OER, OER use,development

160

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Over the centuries, the concept of formal education has been intricately coupled with the ideathat books are an indispensable component of that experience (Reed, 2018). Indeed, some of
the first institutions of learning were formed around large collections of materials such as foundat the Library of Alexandria (Cubberley, 1902). Modern education has continued todemonstrate this reliance on books, with an ongoing dependence on commercial textbooks as
an integral part of the curriculum (Weller, 2014). Unfortunately, this practice has been shownto have an impact on the student experience in the current higher education context. This is dueto the high cost of textbooks, which can potentially prove to be an access barrier to essential
educational resources (Brandle et al., 2019). In fact, as of 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported that the cost of textbooks rose by 142% over the last decade and a half,
which represents a rate that is four times that of inflation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2017). As a result of these high costs, students may choose not to purchase textbooks. In a
study published in 2018 by Wakefield Research, 42% of students surveyed said they had
avoided purchasing course materials because of costs (Lederman, 2018).
Considering this backdrop, it is no wonder that there has been an uptake in interest in the
adoption and development of Open Educational Resources (OER). OER are learning resourcesthat are made available either at no cost in digital format or for very low cost in print format.
They either reside in the public domain or carry with them the necessary Creative Commonslicenses to allow for flexible reuse, revision, remixing, retention, and redistribution (the 5 Rs)
increasing their flexibility (Wiley et al., 2014). It becomes apparent that OER, providing bothfree and flexible access, would be a logical alternative in addressing the textbook cost issue. In
addition to the cost-saving aspect of OER, others are exploring the potential to promote open
practices and to investigate pedagogical shifts through the use of these resources (DeRosa &Robinson, 2017; Ehlers, 2011; Wiley & Hilton III, 2018).
This research examines the experiences and perceptions of faculty and staff as they develop an
OER for an undergraduate nutrition course and apply it in instruction. It further examines theexperience of one instructor undertaking teaching with OER-enabled pedagogy (OP), which isa pedagogical approach involving students in the co-creation of content (Wiley & Hilton III,2018). Findings are organized by recording the experiences of faculty and staff as they develop
and implement an OER and then by examining perceptions through the lens of the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. Recommendations from thisexperience are also presented, which might prove useful for exploring the development of
OER. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to promote greater use and development of OER,
and, therefore, to support greater student access to and application of learning resources. This
access might subsequently impact student success in higher education.
Literature Review
A large amount of research exists that explores factors that might motivate faculty to adopt
OER and factors that might present challenges (Algers & Silva-Fletcher, 2015; Anderson etal., 2017). The literature shows that faculty are motivated to adopt OER in order to cut costs
for students and to enhance educational equity (Belikov & Bodily, 2016) as well as to pursue
pedagogical freedom (Dermody, 2019).
A more recent movement in the consideration of OER adoption is how these resources play arole in the further development of open educational practices (OEP) and how these practices
can potentially enhance student learning (Cronin, 2017; see Figure 1).

161

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Figure 1: OER can play a role in promoting various aspects of OEP.
One of the first discussions of OEP was put forth by Ehlers (2011), who described a second
phase of OER development whereby there is a shift from a focus on OER as merely resources
to a focus on how they can promote open practices in education. In a paper discussing how
open resources support the exploration of open pedagogy, DeRosa and Robinson (2017)
reported that when students are exposed to and engaged in the use and reuse of learning
resources, they can begin to develop new and deeper relationships with the resources, whichmight impact learning. Since the term “open pedagogy” has become associated with OER in
recent years, and in order to avoid confusion, this research used the term “OER-enabledpedagogy” as defined by Wiley and Hilton (2018) as “the set of teaching and learning practices
that are only possible or practical in the context of the 5R permissions that are characteristic of
OER” (p. 133).
The scholarly literature does not provide in-depth research on faculty who have alreadyadopted OER and who may be experimenting with OP. In addition, it does not provide a great
deal of research detailing the process of OER creation and application within a course(Mallinson & Krull, 2015). An account of this process might prove useful for otherprofessionals contemplating the move toward OER creation by providing insights into theactual process as well as useful guideposts along the way. Therefore, the focus of this research
was to explore the experiences and perceptions of faculty and staff in higher education as they
initiated and developed an OER for an undergraduate course and then applied it in instruction.
Methodology
This study applied an interpretive qualitative approach (Creswell et al., 2006) in order toexplore the perspectives of faculty and staff engaged with the development and application of
an OER textbook and OP in the context of higher education. This approach uses word-based
data in its analysis and views human action as meaningful and best studied in its social contexts(Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006). Eight participants took part in this research. They
represented the various roles involved with the development and application of an OER for one
specific undergraduate class at a research-intensive university. An exempt status IRB approval
was secured for the study as well as consent for all interviews. Data were recorded, transcribed,
validated by participants, and anonymized.

162

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Participants
Eight individuals made up the participating team. Two faculty members had been involved insecuring a university OER Initiative Grant (http://oer.hawaii.edu/projects/) in 2017 and inorganizing and guiding the overall development of a textbook for their academic area. Graduate
assistants (GAs), acting as resource developers, worked on adapting or creating detailed
information within the text under the guidance of the faculty. An institutional OER technologist
provided instructional design and resource development support as well. Instructors
implemented the OER textbook and provided feedback to enhance later modifications. One ofthree course instructors experimented with implementing OP activities within two sections of
the course. Interviews with these participants represented all but one member of the entire teamand represented all of the participant roles.
The UTAUT Model
Constructs associated with the UTAUT framework guided this research (Venkatesh et al.,2003). The UTAUT model is based on eight different technology acceptance models and isapplied in research to explain user intentions to use an information system and subsequent
usage behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This framework is based on core constructs that
determine the intention to adopt a specific technology: performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. The original UTAUT framework also
included the constructs of attitude and Internet self-efficacy, which were incorporated into theframework for this research.
The UTAUT model has helped to guide research exploring different aspects of technology
acceptance in the context of open access adoption studies and open practices (Dulle & MinishiMajanja, 2011; Kandiero, 2015; Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014; Percy & Van Belle, 2012). Theseauthors have indicated that the original UTAUT framework used in quantitative research has
proved consistent as a model, with high validity and reliability, and is robust in predicting theacceptance of a new technology as compared to other models (Percy & Van Belle, 2012).
Though this model has primarily been applied to research investigating potential acceptanceand use of a technology, it is also appropriate to apply as a guiding framework when exploring
the process of development and adoption of a technology because it examines influencing
factors.
Research Question
The research question explored in this study was as follows:
What are the perceptions and experiences of faculty and staff in the development ofan OER, in instruction introducing the OER, and in the application of OER-enabledpedagogy in an undergraduate course?
Instrumentation
The instrument developed for this study consisted of semi-structured interview questions witha guiding interview protocol. Questions, which were based on the constructs that outline the
UTAUT model, varied as appropriate to the participant role. Questions addressed the roles offaculty, OER technologist, resource developer, and instructor.
The interview questions referenced those developed by a number of researchers applying the
UTAUT model (Dulle and Minsihi-Majana, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2003). They also
referenced those developed to examine instructional priorities for adopting OER (Jung &163

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Hong, 2016). The referenced instruments were either released under a Creative Commonslicense, which allows reuse, or permission was sought for their use.
Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative data were gathered through recorded semi-structured interviews with the eightparticipants who were involved throughout the project. Data were then transcribed
professionally and later validated by the interviewees. Analysis was conducted as passages inthe text were identified and coded. Next these codes were categorized and then thematicallyanalyzed. Through this process, the words of the participants were used to deepen
understanding and shed light on the process of OER development and use (Corden &Sainsbury, 2006). The narrative developed from the data was later sent to the participants for
final review and validation.
Findings
Findings for this study were organized in two ways. Firstly, the experiences of the faculty andstaff as they moved from the initial conception of the OER project through the development
and application in instruction were recorded in a narrative format. Secondly, findings and theemerging themes were organized by and recorded through the lens of the UTAUT framework.
Insights from the findings were also translated into recommendations in order to provide a
guide for subsequent OER development.
Development and Application of the OER
Inception. To prepare for the upcoming semester, the lead faculty visited the bookstore to pickup the newest edition of the textbook she had been using. She reported being ‘appalled. It was$130 for a book that didn’t have any binding, no cover, and it had two different sets of page
numbers!’ She didn’t think she could ask students to work with such an obviously “awful”
textbook and immediately emailed the campus OER technologist to find a solution.
The technologist suggested that the faculty apply for a campus OER grant offered through theOutreach College. She applied for and was awarded the grant. At this point, she identified ateam that would become responsible for the development of the OER. The team would
ultimately consist of the lead faculty, a support faculty, the OER Technologist, two graduate
assistants, and three instructors, who would later implement the text.
The goal of the project from the faculty members’ perspective was to develop a free resourcethat could be shared and that was as good as, or better than, the customary commercial
textbook. Also, the faculty wanted a resource over which they had control of the content andone that was “placed-based and more appropriate for their student population”.
Development. The actual work began in January 2017. After the first GA was hired, weekly
meetings became the norm, which continued for the year during the development phase. Thesemeetings became a critical component of the workflow and helped to “ensure a successful
product”. The GA reported that the first order of business was to “brainstorm everything.
Figuring out … what was the mission for this book, what were our goals … then outlining thechapters … before beginning to research”. The technologist relied on his background as an
instructional designer to provide guidance in the overall design of the resource as the team“made a version that was based on how [the faculty] wished the course would be”.

164

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

After the initial brainstorming meetings, the faculty members’ role became to first “organize
the sequence of topic areas” and then “find OER resources that were already out there …
judging which ones best fit the level of science that we were teaching and were reliable andseemed to be sound”“. The OER technologist assisted the team in this phase by directing themto existing resources.
Throughout the process, someone needed to take the key role in leading the OER development.
The lead faculty fulfilled this role by “ultimately being the one responsible to see [the project]from start to finish” and to ensure that funding was available.
The GA reported helping with the “basic outline of the textbook, and then actually finding thecontent or writing the content if it wasn’t available”. The GA shared, “The faculty were able
to contribute to [the text] to make sure that we had the key points correct … as a lot of nutrition
books seem to have wrong information”. After the first semester, the Gas changed. The newly
hired GA brought fresh eyes to the project finding that “there were a lot of things missing that
we really wanted to include”. For example, they wanted to make sure that “every chapter there
has a connection to something … that relates to Hawaii or Pacific Islanders”. This GA was also
responsible for finding openly licensed photos and images, which became “a huge, timeconsuming factor”. As the content started emerging, the GA was also aware of the need toprovide a consistent tone and similar structure throughout the material. As the resource more
fully formed, the technologist organized an outside review by working with the Rebus Project,which provides a community of collaborators with publishing guidance for OER projects.
Through this project, the resource was reviewed by “subject matter experts from a couple ofdifferent institutions … and [by] different copy editors … to look for tone and consistency”.
Most of the work had been completed in Google Docs for collaboration purposes. The final
product would be offered as a Pressbook. The OER technologist indicated that “Once you’rein Pressbooks, the process [of developing the OER], the workflow, is not as streamlined, notas smooth”. It was in the Pressbook development phase where the team began “doing the real
aesthetic things of making sure the references looked fine or fixing tables”. The team needed
to work with “the resolution of images so they would print well” and “to add in alternative text
… for accessibility”. The final stage also included sharing the resource beyond the boundariesof the university. The OER technologist “shared it over Twitter, over social media, and emailed
it to a couple of different listservs, and sent it to a few folks … who were waiting for the book”.
Transition into instruction. In the process of transitioning to a new instructional resource, theinstructors reported that there “wasn’t much of an impact [on their workload] … just updating
links on … a personal website”. One instructor reported that the “impact was really positive. It
feels so nice as an instructor to say, ‘We have this free resource for you’”. Another instructor
reported, “a bigger impact [was that] I felt good about the way the information was being shared
to students and the fact that it was free, that they could have access to this textbook even after
the course is over. It is also more relatable, with local information and beautiful local pictures”.
OER-enabled pedagogy. When launching the new textbook, one instructor decided to begin
work on a unit that she felt was missing from nutrition textbooks. Her goal was to begin
developing a unit on “health at every size, body positivity, and size diversity”. Realizing that
this goal would unfold over several semesters, she began by involving students in research inthis field, which would later appear in the textbook. “I was able to create an assignment for the
students [on this topic], and on how to use the library database, and how to look up peer
reviewed journals under [this] topic that were not in the book yet”. She continued by saying,165

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

“The whole premise of the class is that we’re teaching evidence-based recommendations andinformation. To have them try to find research, read it, and connect to a topic we weredeveloping. … To get them a little excited to know this is part of the research [process], andthey’re contributing, and that it might make a difference”.
In terms of the impact of this approach on instruction, the instructor shared that “students aretaking part in deciding what is important, and making those decisions, and developing thosecritical thinking skills about maybe what … their textbooks have, or don’t have, or that theywish they did have”. The instructor continued by saying, “they have … that student eye, …
and we’re trying to develop them into these critical thinkers who can look at evidence anddetermine ‘Is this worth putting in a textbook, or not?’ … It’s creative, and it makes a lot ofsense”.
UTAUT Constructs with Emerging Themes
The following section reviews the data using the structure of the UTAUT framework in order
to explore the perceptions of the OER team as they developed and applied the resource ininstruction. It also provides data on the perception of OP as applied in the context of this study.
Attitude. This construct refers to an individual’s feelings – both positive and negative –towards the use of a technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Three main themes emerged from thedata: pride in localizing the information; a sense of well-being that students were being served;
and sharing of the resource was part of the overall goal.
One of the faculty stated, “Two thirds of our students come from here. So, we really try to be
mindful of that and have the place – our community – reflected in the textbook… with
Hawaiian values and examples… You wouldn’t get that in a traditional publisher’s textbook”.
One instructor, who had recently been a student herself, relayed that “the personal satisfaction
I get is just knowing that I have students who are probably helping their families to pay rent,
or a mortgage, or bills… If I can help to offset that by having this resource available, then you
know, they feel more supported in their education. I think it goes back to equity… and how weare not all privileged”.
Another faculty member reflected on the idea of sharing the OER, “I would be honored to share
the OER … it’s part of the big objective that this be used elsewhere, too”. The technologist
relayed that they “put the most liberal open license on [the OER]. Because we want this content,
and this book, to travel as far as possible”.
Performance expectancy. This construct focuses on the degree to which an individual
perceives that using a system or technology will help in attaining a gain in job performance(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Those interviewed perceived that the application of the OER 1)
afforded benefits to assist students in their learning, 2) provided control over content, and 3)
allowed professional recognition.
Through the interviews, several benefits to students came to light. Data indicated that the OER
benefited students in terms of equity and accessibility when an OER was employed. This wasachieved by both removing the cost barrier for the resource and by opening up forms of access.
One faculty mentioned that, besides being free, one of the main benefits of an OER was “being
able to view it on the web and then also download it in multiple formats”. The OER
technologist also mentioned that “hundreds of students go through this course every semester.

166

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

… and they know that they will always have access to the book”. In addition, one faculty sharedthat it had become evident through her experience that “the place-based aspects of [a resource]
help students relate to material, which then typically enhances learning”.
Participants felt that the flexibility of having control over the content in order to revise andupdate the OER was an important strength in using OER. One faculty remarked, “I like theconcept of something that we can have in-house control over. It evolves as we use it. We shouldbe able to improve it and pass it on to the next generation”. The OER technologist recognized
the flexibility using an OER offers: “… it opens up the possibilities of what [faculty] can dowith the book when they know they can change. It’s like being liberated”.
Finally, the team shared a range of professional gains. One faculty didn’t know if work on the
project would be beneficial to promotion because no institutional recognition is given toscholarship when developing OER. However, another faculty felt that the campus promotion
and tenure committee “saw the value” in the work done on the OER because use statistics wereavailable to support instructional efficacy. In addition, the team had received almost 20
requests from different institutions indicating they were interested in adopting the OER, which
impacts networking and professional reputation.
Effort expectancy. This construct refers to the degree of ease associated with the use of thetechnology or system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). It is applied in this research as the ease ofdeveloping the OER and applying it to instruction. Themes that emerged related to thechallenges in developing the OER, and that there were minimal challenges in instruction.
Numerous challenges came to light during the interviews: time needed for resource
development; securing supporting funding; finding and adapting content; and creating
graphics. All team members expressed surprise in regard to the amount of time it took to fully
develop the OER. As one GA mentioned, “The idea of an OER textbook, a free textbook,sounds great, but when you are actually doing a lot of the work, … you realize how much work
it really is!” In addition to recognizing direct costs of developing the OER, one faculty
discussed other indirect costs. The lead faculty estimated the total cost for the GA support for
the entire project as $27,000 and further speculated, “Everything else came through our time –[the time of the faculty and the OER technologist] … so maybe [costing] a total of at least$60,000 to $80,000”.
In regard to implementing the new textbook, all instructors interviewed felt that, rather thanpresenting a challenge, the resource provided a benefit. One instructor mentioned the only real
impact was updating the syllabus.
Social influence. This construct represents the degree to which an individual perceives thatimportant others believe an individual should use the system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). There
was no one outstanding positive social influence identified by the team members. In fact, thelack of social influence was noted more prominently, including from department and college.
Technology self-efficacy. This refers to an individual’s personal belief that he or she possesses
the aptitude and skills to succeed when engaging with a technology (Moghavvemi, 2014). For
this research, this concept revealed the need for skills to create the resource using appropriatetechnology and the technical understanding of open publishing.

167

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

“You definitely have to have a pretty solid set of technology skills to be able to create [atextbook]”. This statement by a GA summed up the team perspective about necessary
technology skills. When asked how the skills brought to the project by the OER technologist
contributed to the overall development of the OER, the team, as a whole, felt those skills werecritical. In fact, the technologist shared, “I don’t think that I would have been able to get thisdone in the same amount of time if I wasn’t familiar with open source software and open
content and copyright”.
Facilitating conditions. This is the degree to which an individual perceives that
infrastructures are available for support (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Factors discussed here
include the need for institutional support, and team support that provides expertise in avariety of areas.
One important institutional step in supporting OER development is through a program suchas an OER Grant Project (https://oer.hawaii.edu/projects/). Institutional support also came in
the form of providing the suite of tools with which to create and then host the delivery of the
OER. The OER Technologist mentioned a final form of potential institutional support:“having policies in place for tenure and promotion that value OER production as a scholarly
output”.
The interviews also brought to light how very important a team approach became as the OER
evolved. The OER technologist shared, “if we had a small [consistent] team, a small crew ofpeople that all know how to do [the publishing tasks] … that would make it so much easier”.
One faculty shared how important it was to have an OER technologist as part of the team: “Iwould say [the technologist] was probably one of the most important [members]”.
OER-enabled pedagogy Though only one team member, an instructor, applied OP in
instruction with the newly-developed OER, other team members reflected on the potential
value of exploring OP. Two themes emerged from the interviews: OP has the potential toincrease student involvement in their learning; and the potential is not realized on campus atthat time.
As outlined earlier, one instructor introduced an OP assignment by having students research a
topic of their interest pertinent to the concept of “Health at Every Size”. This instructor shared,“… it makes sense to me … that students are taking part in deciding what is important andmaking those decisions and developing those critical thinking skills about what their textbook
should have or that they wish it did have. … It’s creative and makes a lot of sense”.
In reflecting on OP on campus, the OER technologist indicated, “I think OER-enabledpedagogy showcases what’s possible when the content is open. And I think there’s a lot of
potential in that”. However, he cautioned that “I think it would take some time and some effort
to design pedagogical tools that could be implemented within a course”.
Discussion
This study provides an insight into the perceptions and experiences of one team of university
faculty and staff as they created an OER for an undergraduate course, adopted it in theirinstruction, and explored the use of OP. Findings from this research are important in that they
provide an accounting of the process of OER development and application not seen in the168

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

literature. Themes relating to OP were pedagogical in nature and were, therefore, examinedoutside of the UTAUT framework.
All members of the OER team felt positive about the experience of developing andimplementing the OER. The overall goals were to provide a resource free to students and onethat was place-based and appropriate for local students. Much research has explored thepositive impact on student learning when OER are freely offered (Colvard et al., 2018;
Lieberman, 2018). Other research has indicated the importance of place in culturally relevantscience education (Sutherland & Swayze, 2012). Instructors in this research were particularly
excited about the localization of the content and felt that it positively impacted their teachingexperience with the students, which is consistent with outside research (Ivins, 2011).
Findings for several of the constructs in this research parallel those found in other UTAUT
research on the topic of OER in higher education. “Attitude” was found to be an importantfactor in OER adoption. In their research, Huang and Wu (2013) found that “attitude” was thestrongest predictor of behavioral intention to use OER. In addition, “effort expectancy” wasfound to positively impact the intention to use OER in several studies (Kandiero, 2015; Mtebe& Raisamo, 2014; Padhi, 2018). Finally, findings from this study are consistent with other
OER-related UTAUT findings in regard to the construct of “social influence”. These studies
indicate no social influence on the intention to use or the use of OER (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014;
Padhi, 2018; Percy & Van Belle, 2012).
There exists an inconsistency with research in the literature and some of the findings in thisresearch. “Performance expectancy” is important in this research, though not in the findings byMtebe and Raisamo (2014). However, in support of this finding, research conducted by Padhi(2018) found that performance expectancy had a positive impact on OER use. The research of
Jhangiani et al. (2016) as well as that of Percy and Van Belle (2012) support this finding. The
most curious and inconsistent finding was regarding the construct of “facilitating conditions”.
The current research revealed its critical importance through both institutional support andteam support. Though the findings of Percy and Van Belle (2012) corroborated this finding in
the current research, those from Mtebe and Raisamo (2014) and Padhi (2018) did not.
Though the importance of technological infrastructure was addressed outside of the scope of
the UTAUT framework in several studies (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014; Padhi, 2018; Percy & Van
Belle, 2012), technology self-efficacy was not included as a construct in the theoreticalframework within the studies referenced here. The current research found that this construct
was very important as revealed in themes regarding the skills needed to create a resource andin understanding open publishing. These findings are consistent with OER research conducted
outside of the UTAUT framework (Butcher, 2015; Towey et al., 2016).
OER-Enabled Pedagogy
The instructor, who had introduced OP through a research assignment, felt that the students
were developing critical-thinking skills through their involvement. The instructor also felt that
applying this pedagogical approach was creative and would lead to students taking more
responsibility for their learning. In some literature, assignments associated with OP are
identified as non-disposable assignments (NDAs; Wiley, 2013); however, “little organized
literature exists to effectively define, implement, and, accordingly, empirically evaluate the useof NDAs” (Seraphin, 2018, p. 1). Though there is not a plethora of research focusing on OP,
the findings in this research align with the literature, which reveal an excitement and potential
benefit to student learning when OP is applied (Dermody, 2019; Hegarty, 2015; Wiley et al.,169

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 20202017). This research agrees with that found in a study exploring student perceptions of the useof OP as opposed to traditional educational assignments. In that research, OP was perceived as
positive by a majority of students in a multi-institutional study (Hilton III et al., 2019).
The OER technologist pointed out that the development of OER is really the first step in
exploring the freedoms that teaching with OER can afford. In fact, because there is little
direction in the literature on best practices in implementing OP and because the OP assignment
in this research represented an initial first exploration into applying OP, the full potential inthis context has yet to be realized. There is literature that explores the potential of OP for
student learning (DeRosa & Robinson, 2017; Dermody, 2019) but not a great deal of empiricalresearch that has examined the actual potential (Seraphin et al., 2018).
Recommendations
Future research might include more in-depth study into factors that promote or detract from
OER and OP development and use. Future research might also encompass the assessment ofstudent learning when students produce their own learning materials. Some researchers havestressed the importance of localization (Ivins, 2011; Wiley et al., 2014), with recommendations
to localize OER included in the 2012 Paris Declaration on OER (UNESCO, 2012). However,there seems to be little research reporting on this specific concept.
The findings from this research have practical implications as well. They have helped to presenta realistic accounting of the process in developing an OER. Recommendations emerged fromthe data that might be taken into consideration when launching an OER development project.
The recommendations fell into four main categories. Firstly, institutional support is necessary
in order to provide varied incentives such as funding through grants. It is also important toinstitute programs that promote awareness of OER as well as policies that support promotion
and tenure. Secondly, technical support is also necessary. This can take the form of expertisein open resources, accessibility, copyright and licensing, and instructional design. Knowledgeof publishing platforms, design for layout and editing, and image creation are also critical inpromoting the smooth development of OER. Thirdly, OER development can benefit from the
support of a team, who would bring diverse skills to the project. Members would include a
project lead, subject matter experts, and members with necessary technical skills. The final
recommendation is that a time management plan be developed, one that is both flexible andrealistic.
Limitations
One limitation of this research is its generalizability to other contexts (Leung, 2015). It is
recognized that there are differences in the academic culture between various institutions anddisciplines. In addition, the original team for this project was made up of nine individuals, eightof whom agreed to participate in interviews. The small number of participants may affect thegeneralizability of the findings; however, this research was well documented, which can boost
reliability through replication (Leung, 2015).
Conclusion
This study explored the perspectives of faculty and staff engaged with the development andapplication of an OER textbook at an institution of higher education. It applied a qualitativeinterpretive approach through semi-structured interviews with those university professionals

170

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

involved with the OER project development and subsequent application in instruction. This
included one instructor’s experience in applying OP.
These findings can help fill a gap in the literature and potentially provide an informed approachto the planning and development of OER. The data from this research helped to outline factors
needed for the support and management of an OER-development project and provided
reflections on the challenges and benefits throughout the process.
The participants in this research have already begun implementing a future edition of the OER.
This will include edits from feedback originating from instructors, students, and otherprofessionals outside of the campus who are using the resource. The upcoming version will
also embed study activities and include a student activity pack and test bank. These features
have shown to be very important for the instructors. The instructor, who experimented with an
OP activity, plans to take the next step in having students assist in developing a new unit for
the OER. Finally, the lead faculty is preparing to develop a new OER for an upper divisionclass for the department. In this research, the process of developing an OER has positively
impacted the participants and has opened up potential projects and creative applications ofOER.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to warmly thank Dr. Christine Sorensen-Irvine, who provided guidance
and feedback on this work, and to those who participated in the study.

171

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

References
Algers, A., & Silva-Fletcher, A. (2015). Teachers’ perceived value, motivations for andadoption of open educational resources in animal and food sciences. iJET, 10(2), 35–
45. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i2.4427
Anderson, T., Gaines, A., Leachman, C., & Williamson E. P. (2017). Faculty and instructor
perceptions of Open Educational Resources in engineering. The Reference Librarian,58(4), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2017.1355768
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
Brandle, S. M., Katz, S., Hays, A., Beth, A., Cooney, C., Miles, L., DiSanto, J., andMorrison, A. (2019). But what do the students think: Results of the CUNY crosscampus zero-textbook cost student survey. Open Praxis, 11(1), 85–101.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.1.932.
Butcher, N. (2015). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). France: UNESCO.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215804e.pdf
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.
Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitativesocial research: Researchers’ views. Retrieved fromhttps://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf
Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Clark, V. L., Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative
research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1–11.
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open education practices inhigher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
Cubberley, E. P. (1902). The history of education: Educational practice and progressconsidered as a phase of the development and spread of western civilization.
Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/historyofeducati00cubbuoft/page/n6/mode/2up
DeRosa, R., & Robinson, S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power ofopen. In R. S. Jhangiani, & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The philosophy andpractices that are revolutionizing education and science (pp. 115–124). Ubiquity
Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.i
Dermody, R. (2019). Open pedagogy for teaching structures. In C. Brause, P. L. Clouston, N.
Darling (Eds.), Building technology educator’s society: Vol 2019, Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.7275/s9xd-h436
Dulle, F. W., & Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2011). The suitability of the unified theory ofacceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model in open access adoption studies.
Information Development, 2, 32–45. https:/doi.org/10.1177/0266666910385375
Ehlers, U. D. (2011). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open
educational practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance, 15(2), 1–10.

172

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using Open Educational
Resources. Educational Technology, July-August 2015, 3–13.
Hilton III, J. L., Wiley, D., Chafee, R., Darrow, J., Guilmett, J., Harper, S., Hilton, B. (2019).
Student perceptions of open pedagogy: An exploratory study. Open Praxis, 11(3),275–288. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.973
Huang, W. D., & Wu, C. (2013). Motivation system in open learning: A structural equation
modeling on the learners of a traditional Chinese-based open courseware system(MyOOPS). Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology, USA.
Ivins, T. Z. (2011). Localization of open educational resources (OER) in Nepal: Strategies of
Himalayan knowledge-workers. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Brigham Young University.
Jhangiani, R., Pitt, R., Hendricks, C., Key, J., & Lalonde, C. (2016). BCcampus Research
Report: Exploring faculty use of open educational resources at British Columbia
postsecondary institutions. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/BCFacultyUseOfOER_final.pdf
Jung, I., & Hong, S. (2016). Faculty members’ instructional priorities for adopting OER. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2803
Kandiero, A. (2015). Educators’ challenges and behavioural intention to adopt Open
Educational Resources: The case of Africa University, Zimbabwe. (Unpublished
Master’s dissertation). University of Cape Town.
Lederman, D. (2018, August 1). Textbook prices’ impact on student behavior. Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/article/2018/08/01/survey-examines-impact-textbook-prices-student-behavior
Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306
Lieberman, M. (2018). Textbook alternatives take hold at community colleges. Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/article/2018/05/09/two-year-institutions-report-significant-savings-oer-initiatives
Mallinson, B. J., & Krull, G. E. (2015). An OER online course remixing experience. Open
Praxis 7(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.3.195
Moghavvemi, S. (2014). Impact of perceived self-efficacy and capability to use IT innovation
on individual use behaviour. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2561739
Mtebe, J., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Challenges and instructors’ intention to adopt and use open
educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1687
Padhi, N. (2018). Acceptance and usability of OER in Indian higher education: An
investigation using UTAUT model. Open Praxis, 10(1), 55–65.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.623
Percy, T., & Van Belle, J. (2012). Exploring the barriers and enablers to the use of open
educational resources by university academics in Africa. OSS 2012. In I. Hammouda,
B. Lundell, T. Mikkonen, & W. Scacchi, (Eds.), Open source systems: Long-termsustainability, (pp. 112–128). Springer.

173

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Reed, J. M. (2018). The history of the textbook: The state of the discipline. Book History, 21,
397–424. https://doi.org/10.1353/bh.2018.0013
Seraphin, S. B., Grizzell, J. A., Kerr-German, A., Perkins, M. A., Grzanka, P. R., & Hardin,
E. E. (2018). A conceptual framework for non-disposable assignments: Inspiring
implementation, innovation, and research. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 18(1),84–97. https:/doi.org/10.1177/1475725718811711.
Sutherland, D., & Swayze, N. (2012). The importance of place in indigenous scienceeducation. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 83–92.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9371-1
Towey, D., Ng, R. Y., & Wang, T. (2016). Open educational resources (OERs) andtechnology enhanced learning (TEL) in vocational and professional education andtraining (VPET). 2016 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, andLearning for Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2016.7851808
UNESCO. (2012). 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/English_Paris_OER_Declaration.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, August 13). Consumer price index – All urban
consumers: College textbooks. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_10132017.pdf
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
Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn't feel like
victory. Ubiquity Press. https:// doi.org/10.5334/bam
Wiley, D. (2013, October 21). Iterating toward openness: What is open pedagogy? Retrieved
from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975
Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open educational resources: A review of theliterature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (pp. 781–789). Springer
Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
Wiley, D., Webb, A., Weston, S., & Tonks, D. (2017). A preliminary exploration of therelationships between student-created OER, sustainability, and student success. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3022
Yanow, D. & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.) (2006). Interpretation and method: Empiricalresearch methods and the interpretive turn. M.E. Sharpe.
Corresponding author: Beth Tillinghast
Contact email: betht@hawaii.edu

174