The Effects and Implications of Using Open Educational Resources in Secondary Schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5293Keywords:
open educational resources, secondary schools, mathematics, state testingAbstract
Open educational resources (OER) constitute a curriculum innovation that is considered revolutionary and has the potential to change the landscape of curriculum at all levels and content areas. OER have gained attention and widespread acceptance by educators and policy makers since 2002. The promise of OER is that they provide cost savings, promote collaboration, and are adaptable to the needs of teachers and students while providing a legitimate alternative to commercially produced print textbooks. Determining the relevance and viability of the movement to embrace OER requires an examination of theoretical foundations and empirical research to illuminate the effect of using OER as core curricula. While advocates promote the use of OER as a financially liberating model of curriculum and as a source of constructivist learning materials, more research is needed. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between OER and student learning. The study critically analyzed previous studies on OER and applied empirical analyses to the use of OER by a sample of middle schools. Twenty-eight middle schools from Washington State served as the subjects for the study. The study followed an ex post facto causal comparative model. Three research questions provided the focus for the study to investigate the effects of OER curriculum, duration of curriculum use, and other factors on student achievement in middle school mathematics. The results of the study found non-significant effects for OER use in relationship to school performance in mathematics, and significant effects on math scores for the variables of student poverty, curriculum duration, and cohort size.
References
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Touchstone.
Dotson, L. & Foley, V. (2017). Common Core, socioeconomic status, and middle level student achievement: Implications for teacher preparation programs in higher education. Journal Of Education and Learning, 6(4), 294–303. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p294
Fischer, L., Hilton, J., III, Robinson, T., & Wiley, D. (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
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Pearson.
Kelly, H. (2014). A path analysis to educator perceptions of open educational resources using the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 26–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1715
Knox, J. (2013). Five critiques of the open educational resources movement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.774354
McKerlich, R., 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, 14(4), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1573
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2015). Open educational resources. http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/oer/
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2018). Washington State report card. http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?groupLevel=District&schoolId=1&reportLevel=State&yrs=2016-17&year=2016-17
Pearcy, M. (2014). Student, teacher, professor: Three perspectives on online education. History Teacher, 47(2), 169–185.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge. Viking.
Robinson, T., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Hilton, J., III. (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning outcomes. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550275
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2016). Smarter Balanced 2014–15 technical report. https://portal.smarterbalanced.org/library/en/2014-15-technical-report.pdf
Smith, M., & Casserly, C. (2006). The promise of open educational resources. Change, 38(5), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.38.5.8-17
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Open educational resources. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/open-educational-resources/
Weiland, S. (2015) Open educational resources: American ideals, global questions. Global Education Review 2(3), 4–23.
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J., III. (2012). A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of using open textbooks in middle and high school science classes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1153
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
