From Consumers to Creators: How Student Participation in OER Development Transforms Understanding of Open Licensing and Improves Digital Literacy

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.9179

Keywords:

open educational resources, OER, student co-creation, Creative Commons, digital literacy

Abstract

Open educational resources (OER) have emerged as key tools in democratizing education, and the levels of student awareness of OER, as well as engagement and use in many Canadian institutions, are increasing. This study explores whether involving undergraduates in the creation of OER improves their understanding of open licensing, their perceptions of OER utility, and their ability to independently access such resources. A pre-/post-activity study was conducted with 57 undergraduate students enrolled in an advanced biochemistry course. As part of the course’s activities, students collaboratively contributed to the creation of a new open resource aiming to increase understanding of enzyme mechanisms, to be used by themselves as well as their peers. Data were collected using structured surveys and analyzed via the Wilcoxon signed-rank test across three domains: Creative Commons knowledge, OER perception, and OER access. Statistically significant improvements were observed in students’ understanding of open licensing, particularly their knowledge of Creative Commons licenses (e.g., understanding license types; p < .001), perceptions of OER credibility (e.g., perceived accuracy and source citation; p = .0049), and behaviors related to accessing diverse types of OER materials (p = .0397). Thematic analysis supported these findings, highlighting learning gains and increased engagement in areas previously unfamiliar to students. Participation in the creation of OER fostered a deeper conceptual understanding and more favorable attitudes toward open education. However, changes in access behavior were modest, indicating the need for institutional scaffolding to fully support learner autonomy in open environments.

Author Biographies

Natasha Ramroop Singh, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada

Dr. Natasha Ramroop Singh is an Associate Teaching Professor of Biology and Biochemistry at Thompson Rivers University (Canada), where her work integrates disciplinary expertise with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Her research examines the impact of open educational resources (OER), open pedagogy, and student-generated knowledge production on engagement, equity, and disciplinary skill development in the biological sciences. She has led and collaborated on multiple grant-funded SoTL projects, mentors undergraduate and postgraduate research assistants in education research, and disseminates her work through peer-reviewed publications and national and international presentations. Dr. Ramroop Singh is also the creator and co-creator of several open textbooks and student-generated media initiatives designed to increase access, foster authentic learning, and strengthen scientific literacy. Her teaching and research are grounded in a commitment to accessible, evidence-informed, and community-engaged higher education.

Ayisha Najeeha C O K, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada

Ayisha Najeeha C O K is a PhD student in Statistics at the University of Guelph. Her research develops statistical methods for hybrid meta-analysis under measurement uncertainty, with applications in genomics, microbiome science, and ecology. She holds master’s degrees in Data Science and Statistics and is passionate about student learning, collaborative research, and reproducible data analysis.

Olivia Mendez Romero, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada

Olivia Mendez Romero is an industrial and systems engineer and also a dental surgeon, with a specialization in human resources and a master’s degree in education.  They have always had a strong interest in education, learning, and knowledge, and for the past 15 years they have focused on improving education for children with high abilities through research on gifted students, online development, and school dropout. This work led them to become involved in research projects related to diversity and equity, trauma informed pedagogy, and more recently, the use and development of open educational resources in leadership and scientific areas, with the goal of improving access to high quality education.

Kira Reierson, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada

Kira Reierson is a Master of Science in Forensic Science student at Trent University. She received a bachelor’s degree in biology with a major in cellular, molecular, microbial biology. She will be doing a research placement at the BC Centre for Disease Control. She is interested in the field of forensic sciences, but also in giving other students more learning opportunities using open education resources.

References

Adil, H. M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq, M. (2024). Open education resources’ benefits and challenges: A systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2022-0049

Arispe, K., & Hoye, A. (2023). Partnering higher education and K–12 institutions in OER: Foundations in supporting teacher OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(2), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6856

Cheung, S. K. S., Wong, B. T M., & Li, K. C. (2022). Perceived usefulness of open educational resources: Impact of switching to online learning for face-to-face and distance learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1004459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1004459

Cho, K. W., & Permzadian, V. (2024). The impact of open educational resources on student achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 126, Article 102365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102365

Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifice: A case report on open-source 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). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872212

Clinton‑Lisell, V. E., Roberts‑Crews, J., & Gwozdz, L. (2023). SCOPE of open education: A new framework for research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(4), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7356

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), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096

DeRosa, R., & Robison, S. (2017). From OER to open pedagogy: Harnessing the power of open. In R. S. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science (pp. 115–124). Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bbc.i

Farias-Gaytán, S., Aguaded, I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2023). Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 386. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9

Griffiths, R., Mislevy, J., & Wang, S. (2022). Encouraging impacts of an open education resource degree initiative on college students’ progress to degree. Higher Education, 84(5), 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00817-9

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, 14(3), Article e0212508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212508

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

Jhangiani, R., Pakkal, O., & Xia, X. (2025). The multi-year impact of Canada’s first zero textbook cost initiative. Open Praxis, 17(2), 326–348. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.2.832

Lan, M., Liu, H., & Pan, Q. (2025). Unpacking the digital literacy–self-regulated learning nexus: A systematic review and a three-level meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 48, Article 100713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100713

LeMire, S., Anders, K., & Pantuso, T. (2024). Exploring first-generation student experiences with OER textbooks. College & Research Libraries, 85(7), Article 952. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.7.952

López‑Núñez, J.‑A., Alonso‑García, S., Berral‑Ortiz, B., & Victoria‑Maldonado, J.‑J. (2024). A systematic review of digital competence evaluation in higher education. Education Sciences, 14(11), Article 1181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111181

Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bovill, C. (2023). Do open students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7), 1744–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928060

Maultsaid, D., & Harrison, M. (2023). Can open pedagogy encourage care? Student perspectives. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(3), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i3.6901

Meger, E., Schwartz, M., & Freeman, W. (2021). Participation in OER creation: A trajectory of values. The Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 1(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2021.1.2.13

Mercer‑Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, L. S., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119

Mirzaei, A., Carter, S. R., Patanwala, A. E., & Schneider, C. R. (2022). Missing data in surveys: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 18(2), 2308–2316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.03.009

Mishra, S. (2025). A review of reviews on open educational resources. Open Praxis, 17(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.2.851

Mullens, A. M., & Hoffman, B. (2023). The affordability solution: A systematic review of open educational resources. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09793-7

Nobre, A. (2021). Open educational practices and resources in the higher education learning environment. In D. Chatham (Ed.), Advancing online course design and pedagogy for the 21st century learning environment (pp. 93–111). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5598-9.ch006

Omland, M., Hontvedt, M., Siddiq, F., Amundrud, A., Hermansen, H., Mathisen, M. A. S., Rudningen, G., & Reiersen, F. (2025). Co-creation in higher education: A conceptual systematic review. Higher Education, 90, 1017–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01364-1

Santos-Hermosa, G. (2024). Impact and implementation of UNESCO’s recommendation on open educational resources in academic libraries: SPARC Europe case study. Research in Learning Technology, 32, Article 3183. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v32.3183

Schmied, A., Ntonia, I., Ng, M. K. J., Zhu, Y., Gibbs, F., & Zou, H. G. (2024). Co-creating with students to promote science of learning in higher education: An international pioneer collaborative effort for asynchronous teaching. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 35, Article 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2024.100229

Short, C. R., Hilton, B., Hilton, J., III, Wiley, D., Chaffee, R., Guilmett, J., & Darrow, J. (2024). Higher education instructors’ perceptions of open pedagogy: An exploratory study of open pedagogy definitions in practice. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2024.2334237

Spencer, C., Angra, A., Dósa, K., & Jones, A. (2025). Undergraduate learning gains and learning efficiency in a focused open education resource. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 26(2), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i2.8117

Tietjen, P., & Asino, T. I. (2021). What is open pedagogy? Identifying commonalities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5161

Tinmaz, H., Lee, Y.-T., & Baber, H. (2022). A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learning Environments, 9, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Tlili, A., Garzón, J., Salha, S., Huang, R., Xu, L., Burgos, D., Denden, M., Farrell, O., Farrow, R., Bozkurt, A., Amiel, T., McGreal, R., López‑Serrano, A., & Wiley, D. (2023). Are open educational resources (OER) and practices (OEP) effective in improving learning achievement? A meta‑analysis and research synthesis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00424-3

Tlili, A., Zhang, X., Lampropoulos, G., Salha, S., Garzón, J., Bozkurt, A., Huang, R., & Burgos, D. (2025). Uncovering the black box effect of open educational resources (OER) and practices (OEP): A meta-analysis and meta-synthesis from the perspective of activity theory. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 504. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04644-y

Trust, T., Maloy, R. W., & Edwards, S. (2023). College student engagement in OER design projects: Impacts on attitudes, motivation, and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221081454

UNESCO. (n.d.). Open educational resources (OER). https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer

UNESCO. (2024, November 20). Dubai Declaration on Open Educational Resources (OER): Digital public goods and emerging technologies for equitable and inclusive access to knowledge. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000392271.locale=en

Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2021a). Exploring student perceptions as co‑authors of course material. Open Praxis, 13(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.13.1.1187

Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2021b). Learning to be open: Instructor growth through open pedagogy. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 38(4), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1970520

Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2021c). What motivates students about open pedagogy? Motivational regulation through the lens of self-determination theory. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(3), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5373

Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L., III. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

Downloads

Published

2026-08-07

How to Cite

Ramroop Singh, N., C O K, A. N., Mendez Romero, O., & Reierson, K. (2026). From Consumers to Creators: How Student Participation in OER Development Transforms Understanding of Open Licensing and Improves Digital Literacy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 27(3), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.9179

Issue

Vol. 27 No. 3 (2026)

Section

Research Articles

License

Creative Commons License

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

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.

This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific 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:

  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.