Content area
Integrating open educational resources into blended learning courses or online instruction poses considerable challenges for teachers, particularly when using open-only resources. These include navigating through a multitude of resources, incorporating them into the curriculum, addressing copyright concerns, or collaborating with librarians or IT professionals. This becomes especially important in cases of teachers' collaboration across multiple organizations, whether for legal, technological, cultural, or pedagogical reasons. To address this challenge, we have developed an instrument to help teachers engage in designing open-only blended learning instruction. A five-phase process is proposed. It starts with a comprehensive inventory of scientific knowledge and ends with validation of an instrument. To begin, extensive reviews of the literature were conducted, specifically focusing on the impact of open educational resources (OER) on teachers in blended learning environments. This allowed us to precisely outline the roles and responsibilities of teachers who adopt OER. Subsequently, advanced artificial intelligence was used to facilitate the development of a self-evaluation tool. To ensure its theoretical soundness, all these findings are cross-referenced to create the instrument. A Delphi method and future ecological tests will be performed to validate the instrument before proper dissemination. The instrument-we called SATOB (Self-Assessment Tool for Teachers in Open-resource-only Blended Learning), consists of four parts: planning and preparation; blending instructional strategies; open education; reflection, improvement and sharing. It contains twenty selfevaluation questions and a scoring system with recommendations for professional development. The instrument was created to facilitate the process of teacher self-regulation to assess the extent to which a course is open resources only and well integrated into a blended instruction design. In the long term, once the tool becomes empirically validated, teachers and institutions committed to open science and open education can use it. However, further research is still necessary.
Abstract: Integrating open educational resources into blended learning courses or online instruction poses considerable challenges for teachers, particularly when using open-only resources. These include navigating through a multitude of resources, incorporating them into the curriculum, addressing copyright concerns, or collaborating with librarians or IT professionals. This becomes especially important in cases of teachers' collaboration across multiple organizations, whether for legal, technological, cultural, or pedagogical reasons. To address this challenge, we have developed an instrument to help teachers engage in designing open-only blended learning instruction. A five-phase process is proposed. It starts with a comprehensive inventory of scientific knowledge and ends with validation of an instrument. To begin, extensive reviews of the literature were conducted, specifically focusing on the impact of open educational resources (OER) on teachers in blended learning environments. This allowed us to precisely outline the roles and responsibilities of teachers who adopt OER. Subsequently, advanced artificial intelligence was used to facilitate the development of a self-evaluation tool. To ensure its theoretical soundness, all these findings are cross-referenced to create the instrument. A Delphi method and future ecological tests will be performed to validate the instrument before proper dissemination. The instrument-we called SATOB (Self-Assessment Tool for Teachers in Open-resource-only Blended Learning), consists of four parts: planning and preparation; blending instructional strategies; open education; reflection, improvement and sharing. It contains twenty selfevaluation questions and a scoring system with recommendations for professional development. The instrument was created to facilitate the process of teacher self-regulation to assess the extent to which a course is open resources only and well integrated into a blended instruction design. In the long term, once the tool becomes empirically validated, teachers and institutions committed to open science and open education can use it. However, further research is still necessary.
Keywords: OER, Blended Learning, Self-evaluation, SLR, DELPHI Method
1. Introduction
With the promotion of Open Science, open access and open data have policies and practices usually in place. Despite this, open educational resources (OER) are not as widely used as they could be due to various barriers (Gutnecht et al., 2020), such as a lack of knowledge that holds teachers back (Otto, 2021), institutional and legal issues regarding rights to the resources created (Mishra, 2017), and a lack of incentives (Belikov et al., 2016). Open education is propelled by two interconnected and complementary goals: sharing and quality (Leonelli, 2023). The former embodies a horizontal dynamic that contributes to the latter. Indeed, sharing promotes exposure, which facilitates constructive feedback. Nevertheless, these two purposes raise substantial challenges for teachers. For example, sharing involves copyright management and clarifying the target audience of the developed resource. Therefore, it can be difficult to include OER in teaching, especially within a blended learning design where sharing resources is done alongside teaching.
One of the authors experienced the challenges of designing open-blended courses firsthand. As colleagues from different universities offered similar courses, we decided to collaborate. However, practical constraints made this very difficult. Some colleagues had not taken care to include only royalty-free resources, legally limiting sharing between universities. Others had failed to consider the technical limitations of their colleagues, such as the absence of certain features in one of the learning management systems, which made incorporating OER technically complicated. Finally, once other colleagues complied with the technical and legal frameworks for inter-university collaboration, the resource was perceived as not sufficiently attractive to students. This highlights the complexity of committing to open resources and inter-institutional sharing. To facilitate interinstitutional teaching collaboration, it was deemed essential to develop tools to support instructors in designing open-only blended learning.
To achieve this objective, we have thoughtfully crafted a three-step strategy. First, we undertook a systematic literature review (SLR) to pinpoint the challenges that teachers face when using and creating OER. Next, using generative AI, we developed a suite of self-evaluation tools for teachers to evaluate their instructional design, their creation/use of open resources, and the integration of these resources into blended learning. We then confronted the results to design the self-evaluation instrument. Ultimately, we present a brief description of the Delphi technique that will be employed before ecological tests to evaluate, regulate and validate the selfevaluation instrument.
2. Literature Review
As Otto (2022) states, the concept of OER is generally well understood in academia. However, their implementation is often inconsistent. While some studies have examined the connection between open resources and the quality of education, their underutilization remains a concern (Ofoegbu et al., 2021). Certainly, policies, financial or technical barriers at the institutional level may be at play. However, the additional workload and tasks for teaching staff may also be contributing factors. Nevertheless, open resources are a relevant lever that can help promote the sustainability of education (Zaid & Alabi, 2021). Studies show that OER facilitates connections between teachers from different institutions, generating a new "space for learning" (Baas et al., 2023, p. 6053). This leads to collaboration, debate, and mutual assistance. Proper use of OER can also improve learning quality (Luo et al., 2020). Ultimately, when coupled with open educational pedagogy, it contributes to enhancing the students' learning journey (Miller et al., 2021) by encouraging them to be more proactive learners.
OER are resources for teaching and learning that offer a wide range of possibilities for use (Wiley et al., 2018, p. 134): retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute. The development of OER is possible with a variety of funding models (Zaid & Alabi, 2021), for example membership, donations, contributor-pay, or sponsorship. It certainly requires skills (Robert & Youga Dieng, 2016). Finally, teachers' familiarity with open resources was structured from simple exposure to deliberate selection (Cox & Trotter, 2017).
When integrated into a blended learning design, OER brings new obstacles. For instance, there is the need to define the instructional design before distributing the open materials and allowing other teachers to reuse them (Mullens & Hoffman, 2023). Yet another example is the essential partnership with fellow professionals, such as librarians and IT experts (Moore & Reinsfelder, 2020). While this task certainly brings professional satisfaction and quality in the resources created, it requires a significant amount of work time. Could we develop a more comprehensive inventory of the consequences for teachers of committing to embracing open education? The objective of this study is to compile a comprehensive list of the consequences that open-resources-only blended learning design would have on the teaching profession.
3. Implications for Teachers Committed to OER-Materials and Methods
To document the implications for teachers when committing to OER, a rather innovative systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted that combined the classic PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) with an AI- supported process (via SciSpace https://scispace.com/). This approach was selected due to the complementary nature of the methods (one is transparent, the other generative) and the fact that the initial article extractions reveled distinct lists. One could no longer ignore the two parallel processes.
3.1 A Systematic Literature Review
The SLR was conducted through a comprehensive search of relevant articles in Web of Sciences, ERIC (via Ovid SP), and PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost). The search terms-via the thesaurus-used to extract articles included "open educational resources," "OER," "teach·," and "methods" (see Figure 1). On the left, the identification and extraction process, which complies with the PRISMA statement, shows the transition from 147 scientific articles identified in the databases to 10 scientific articles selected. The removal of duplicates, then of articles whose title and abstract explicitly indicated another subject of study, and finally the retention of only those that meet the eligibility criteria, transparently explains the reduction in the number of articles selected. On the right, the transition from the first 200 articles proposed by SciSpace to the 130 articles selected for analysis by generative AI is explained (13 duplicates with SLR, 10 in foreign languages, and 45 not retrieved because of paywall or other motives). Subsequently, the visual guide demonstrates that the 130 articles were scrutinized by generative AI.
Notably, the same articles seldom recur in both instances. This suggests that the selection of the tow complementary methods (PRISMA and AI) was judicious, instilling trust in the thoroughness of the article selection.
3.2 Results From AI-Supported SLR
After extracting the first 200 SciSpace articles (prompt: "What are teachers really doing with OER and what are the tasks they are doing to make proper use of these resources?") and following the process described in Figure 1-column B, the 130 remaining articles were submitted to DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B via GPT4ALL v3.10.0, with the following prompt: "Based on these 130 documents, what are teachers actually doing with OER? Provide a comprehensive inventory of all the tasks identified in these 130 documents. The DeepSeek output has listed 11 tasks (Figure 2, which is now presented without the lengthy introduction that preceded the list).
If DeepSeek's tasks 3 and 11 are similar, it makes 10 propositions based on the 130 articles. For example, teachers involved in open education must identify and modify resources, create new materials, select and organize them, incorporate them into their instruction, and disseminate and share these lessons. Moreover, they should participate in training on OER, engage in professional networks, evaluate the impact of open resources on teaching and learning quality, and stay up to date with the latest developments in open education. Some of these tasks may be subject to debate. Integrating resources into teaching is not exclusively the domain of OER. Similarly, participating in learning communities is primarily a matter of professional growth rather than a requirement of open education. However, this collection of articles highlights the additional effort required to engage with open resources, which should not be underestimated.
3.3 Open Resources and Teachers' Workload
After examining the two SLRs, we were able to clearly define the responsibilities related to the use of OER. We compared the list presented in Figure 2 with the practices documented in Table 1, to produce Table 2. This table has been divided into three sections that reflect the impact of open education on teachers: "cross-cutting implications," "implications when reusing OER," and "implications when creating OER." These three categories are practical and enable actions to be considered.
4. Discussion
According to the literature, OER has barriers (Gutnecht et al., 2020), and one of these may be the increase in teachers' workload. With the SRL we conducted, an extensive list of additional tasks resulting from engagement with open education has been proposed. Its content might be of interest to universities or schools that are considering implementing an institutional policy on OER. They should not overlook the impact on teachers' daily activities, nor engage in open washing (Farrow, 2017).
Since our findings are based on SLR, every subsequent task was previously documented in scholarly articles. Due to the research approach, no novel findings could arise. For instance, the importance of teamwork with other professionals had already highlighted (Moore & Reinsfelder, 2020), as was the need for developing abilities crucial for involvement in open education (Robert & Youga Dieng, 2016). However, by integrating these elements, we can offer a comprehensive perspective on open science and the OER movement.
Therefore, the act of teaching with open educational materials can be classified into three distinct categories. The first-cross-cutting implications-encourages training institutions and teachers to familiarize themselves with the implications of open education: mastering new concepts such as copyright (Love & Blankstein, 2024), facilitating interprofessional collaboration (Miller et al., 2021), reevaluating teaching methods (Gerard et al., 2022), and managing pedagogical instability (Dashtestani & Suhrawardi, 2023; Helton, 2024). The second aspect-implications when reappropriating open resources-is that universities and instructors must allocate time to locate and organize teaching materials (Tlili et al., 2023). They must also carefully examine these resources to determine their suitability for the educational context (Love & Blankstein, 2024). Modifying or adjusting them requires additional time and skills (Lo et al., 2023). The third aspect-implication when creating OER-highlights the important issues that teachers and institutions need to address when they want to participate in the dissemination of open resources. By taking part in training courses and engaging with communities of practice, individuals can acquire the essential skills (Miller et al., 2021). Resources should be made available to a targeted audience with clear learning objectives so that other people, whether teachers or students, can use them. Developing skills then becomes a lever for gaining confidence in sharing (Pulker & Kukulska-Hulme, 2020). Finally, everything related to content curation requires a significant amount of work. The framework in which OER can be made available must be delineated by negotiations between the institution and teachers (Love & Blankstein, 2024), to define the conditions under which OER can be made available.
Belikov et al. (2016) suggested that a lack of incentives might explain some teachers' hesitation towards open education. However, making OER mandatory has been documented as not preferred by the teaching staff (Otto, 2022). Therefore, we suggest an alternative incentive based on pedagogical values: the quality of education made possible thanks to self-evaluation. This approach to instrumental support is certainly of interest to teachers, since education quality is generally valued (Baas et al., 2023). Lack of involvement in OER could be due to a lack of skills (Bossu & Willems, 2024), whereas engagement for openness in education is often driven by quality (Pulker & Kukulska-Hulme, 2020). A self-positioning tool, which has been used to support teachers (Alvarez et al., 2021; López-Angulo, et coll., 2024), could help increase familiarity with OER, from awareness to willingness (Cox & Trotter, 2017).
5. Toward a Self-evaluation Instrument
No self-evaluation tool for teachers was identified during the search for scientific literature on open, blended learning. OBTRA (Los et al., 2021) offers a good starting point, but its objective is not self-positioning after instruction design, but rather measuring general readiness. Since no identified instruments, we chose AI- generated solutions to start designing the self-evaluation tool after some preliminary tests that seemed convincing. We keep in mind that this work is not sufficient on its own and must be tested and verified.
5.1 Consequently, we (1) Generated 3 Tools With AI, (2) Compared the 3 Propositions to Build a First Version, and (3) Compared This First Version With the Results Found in OER Implications for Teachers (Table 2) to Make a Theoretically Sound First Draft.
Using Llama 3 8B Instruct, 3 different instruments were generated using the following prompts:
1. "Imagine a teacher that designs a blended learning course using only open educational resources or creating open educational resources. Generate a self-evaluation tool that the teacher can use to analyze the quality of the open-resource-only blended learning design,"
2. "Imagine a teacher working in a university and wanting to offer blended learning to her students. In addition to that, she wants to use and generate open educational resources only so she can share her blended learning course. Can you generate a self-evaluation tool to help her analyze the quality of the blended learning design and the adequacy of the open educational resources use?"
3. "I am a teacher. I design a blended learning course. I want to create open educational resources and only use open resources for this blended learning course. Can you help me assess what I have done?"
Confronting the three outputs, two of the co-authors have prepared an initial version of the self-evaluation instrument following steps 1 to 6 proposed by DeVellis (2017) to examine the operationalization of the tool. The first version is available online (here: https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15431354), but should not be used in its current form, as it is only a preliminary draft that requires further work.
5.2 Confronting First Instrument with OER Implications for Teachers
The first version of the document was confronted with the outcomes of the OER implications. Regarding the open education section, several elements identified were already given by the AI-supported development process and have been estimated as fully equivalent. For instance, "Integrate technology" (see Table 2) is explicitly stated in B2 "Have I used a variety of digital tools and resources [...]" (see first draft), "Review instructional approach" is evident in B3 "Are my instructional strategies flexible enough [...]", or "Clarify targeted students and learning goals" is specified in A1 "Have I clearly defined the learning objectives and outcomes [...]".
However, four very important additional tasks for teachers when choosing OER (see Table 2) were estimated as being missing or insufficiently developed. For example, "Search for and modify OER" is absent from the first draft of the self-evaluation tool; an item needs to be added. It is similar for "Collaborate with librarians, IT, other teachers, or instructional designers," for the "alignment with standards" in "Analyze the relevance of resources for reappropriation," for "Curate a collection of work with institutional partners," for "Gain confidence to sharing resources" and for "Professional development and new concept adoption." Therefore, the following items have been added (see Figure 3).
The second draft of the Self-Assessment tool for Teachers when designing Open-resource-only Blended learning (we call it SATOB, for a nod to satellite observation and the notion of monitoring one's own practice as a teacher), is available here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15490129. With a strong theoretical foundation, it is now crucial to put it to the test in practice.
6. Next Steps-Confront the SATOB
The instrument, as it is emerging from SLR, AI, and five researchers' work, seems theoretically sound. However, it still needs validation. Since the tool is intended for self-evaluation, several methods are conceivable, from questionnaires to assess the clarity of items (Borg & Edmett, 2019), statistical tests to document the link with measured variables (Calancie et al., 2017), or a Delphi study (Lim & Antony, 2016). We intend to conduct the latter because "One of the major premises underlying the whole approach [Delphi technique] is the assumption that a large number of 'experts' judgments are required to 'treat adequately' any issue" (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 22). Its application can serve concepts and framework development (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). In our case, it is especially interesting because of the Delphi technique "helps gauge the generalizability (external validity) or transferability of the findings" (Hasson & Keeney, 2011, p. 1701). Indeed, the self-evaluation instrument that has been created deserves scrutiny by experts, with the goal of refining it until a consensus is reached on its substance and form.
7. Conclusion
The primary objective of this research was twofold. Firstly, it aimed to explore the implications of OER for teachers. Secondly, it sought to create a tool to help teachers self-regulating after designing blended instruction with OER. Two SLRs were conducted to document teachers' implications when using OER (one traditional, following the PRISMA process, and the other using generative AI). Three self-evaluation tools were generated using AI. The findings were compared to create an instrument that teachers can use. However, before introducing it to real-world scenarios, it must first be evaluated by experts using the Delphi method.
Our study aligns with previous findings (Otto, 2022) that suggest that educators do not favor mandatory OER. Instead, they prefer incentives and assistance to participate in this initiative of open education, which appears to be broadly supported. Moreover, OER may align more closely with open pedagogy, facilitating its adoption (Tang et al., 2021)-even if open resources are necessary for implementing open pedagogy (Arispe et al., 2023)-but that would require a clear and explicit policy that promotes openness in teaching, as well as professional development and dedicated time for redesigning instruction (Miller et al., 2021). This is particularly important when designing and creating OER for online or blended learning rather than for face-to-face instruction (Ofoegbu et al., 2021).
The two parallel and complementary extractions from scientific literature indicated that teachers' work is undergoing change because of their commitment to open education. The aforementioned factors have been classified as "cross-cutting implications," "implications when reappropriating OER," and "implications when creating OER."
Open education is a political project in the field of education to which teachers generally agree. However, they may require guidance in incorporating this openness-centric approach into university settings and other educational institutions. The self-evaluation instrument that is currently being designed has the potential to contribute to this support.
References
Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Embracing the Promise of Open Educational Resources: Faculty Insights and Implications in Higher Education. World Journal of Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v14n3p12
Alvarez, L., Çuko, K., Boéchat-Heer, S., & Coen, P.-F. (2021). Faciliter l'autorégulation de l'enseignement. Swiss Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 366-375. https://doi.org/10.24452/sjer.43.3.2
Arispe, K., Hoye, A., and Palmer, K. (2023). The Impact of Open Educational Resource Professional Development for Teachers in Secondary Education. Open Praxis, 15(4), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.4.593
Baas, M., Schuwer, R., Van Den Berg, E., Huizinga, T., Van Der Rijst, R., and Admiraal, W. (2023). What's in it for me? A mixed-methods study on teachers' value creation in an inter-institutional community on open educational resources in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 6049-6074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 022-11424-7
Belikov, O., and 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
Borg, S., and Edmett, A. (2019). Developing a self-assessment tool for English language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817752543
Bossu, C., & Willems, J. (2024). OER based capacity building to overcome staff equity and access issues in higher education. ASCILITE Publications, 22-26. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2017.734
Bradshaw, E., Kimmons, R., and Bondah, F. E. (2024). Understanding Formal Localization of OER: Remixing United Nations Human Rights Resources in Ghana. Open Praxis, 16(3), 362-373. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.686
Calancie, L., Allen, N. E., Weiner, B. J., Ng, S. W., Ward, D. S., and Ammerman, A. (2017). Food Policy Council Self- Assessment Tool: Development, Testing, and Results. Preventing Chronic Disease, 14, 160281. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.160281
Cox, G., and Trotter, H. (2017). An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers' adoption of OER. Open Praxis, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.571
Dashtestani, R., and Suhrawardi, A. M. (2023). Discrepancies and Similarities Between Online and Face-to-Face Teachers' Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) for Teaching Purposes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(4), 44-63. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7284
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale Development. Theory and Applications. SAGE.
Farrow, R. (2017). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991
Gerard, L., Wiley, K., Debarger, A. H., Bichler, S., Bradford, A., and Linn, M. C. (2022). Self-directed Science Learning During COVID-19 and Beyond. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(2), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09953-w
Gutnecht, P., Reimer, R. T. D., and Lüthi, G. (2020). Report on the Open Educational Resources (OER) Survey at Swiss Universities. zhaw.<https://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Dokumente/Organisation/SUK- P/SUK_P-2/OER_Bericht_0.9_zhd_swissuniversities_enL.pdf
Hasson, F., and Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695-1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005
Helton, E. (2024). Ready OER Not: Engaging Teachers with Student Identity through Open Pedagogy [Ph.D., West Virginia University Libraries]. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.12381
Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of Open Science (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009416368
Lim, S. A. H., and Antony, J. (2016). Statistical process control readiness in the food industry: Development of a selfassessment tool. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 58, 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.025
Linstone, H. A., and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley. https://archive.org/details/delphimethodtech0000unse
Lo, C. K., Cheung, K. L., Chan, H. R., and Chau, C. L. E. (2023). Developing flipped learning resources to support secondary school mathematics teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 4787-4805. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1981397
López-Angulo, Y., Sáez-Delgado, F., Gaeta, M. L., Mella-Norambuena, J., González-Robaina, Y., & Muñoz-Inostroza, K. (2024). Validation of the self-regulation of learning instrument for undergraduates. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1464424. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1464424
Los, R., De Jaeger, A., and Stoesz, B. M. (2021). Development of the Online and Blended Teaching Readiness Assessment (OBTRA). Frontiers in Education, 6, 673594. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.673594
Love, S., and Blankstein, M. (2024). US Instructor Survey 2024: Findings from a National Survey. Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.321165
Luo, T., Hostetler, K., Freeman, C., and Stefaniak, J. (2020). The power of open: Benefits, barriers, and strategies for integration of open educational resources. Open Learning : The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(2), 140- 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1677222
Miller, E., Fowler, J., Johns, C., Johnson, J., Ramsey, B., and Snapp, B. (2021). Increasing Active Learning in Large, Tightly Coordinated Calculus Courses. PRIMUS, 31(3-5), 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1772923
Mishra, S. (2017). Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance Education, 38(3), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369350
Moore, J., & Reinsfelder, T. (2020). Current Usage Patterns of Open Educational Resources in the Engineering Mechanics Classroom and Barriers to Adoption. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 95. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl65
Mullens, A. M., & Hoffman, B. (2023). The Affordability Solution: A Systematic Review of Open Educational Resources. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09793-7
Ofoegbu, O. T., Asogwa, U. D., and Ogbonna, C. S. (2021). Open educational resources (OER) and courseware development in dual-mode universities in Nigeria. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1811-1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10014-7
Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
Otto, D. (2021). Driven by Emotions! The Effect of Attitudes on Intention and Behaviour regarding Open Educational Resources (OER). Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.606
Otto, D. (2022). How to Promote the Use of Open Educational Resources (OER) in Higher Education. A Parley with OER Experienced Teachers. Open Praxis, 13(4), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.13.4.264
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, 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pulker, H., and Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2020). Openness reexamined: Teachers' practices with open educational resources in online language teaching. Distance Education. 41(2) 216-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757412
Robert, G., and Youga Dieng, P. (2016). OER trainer's guide v 1.1. Competency Framework Open Educational Resources. . . UNESCO.
Tang, H., Lin, Y.-J., and Qian, Y. (2021)., Improving K-12 Teachers' Acceptance of Open Educational Resources by Open Educational Practices: A Mixed Methods Inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6). 3209- 3232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10046-z
Tlili, A., Ofosu, S., and Zhang, J. (2023) "Pedagogical beliefs, teaching practices and use of open educational resources in the Republic of Ghana. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 2665-2677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1894453
Wiley, D., John Hilton, and Hilton, J. (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
Zaid, Y. A., and Alabi, A. O. (2021). Sustaining Open Educational Resources (OER) initiatives in Nigerian Universities. Open Learning : The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1713738
Copyright Academic Conferences International Limited 2025