"I Don't Gamble To Make My Livelihood": Understanding the Incentives For, Needs Of, and Motivations Surrounding Open Educational Resources in Computing
Pages 430 - 443
Abstract
Background: Prior work has primarily been concerned with identifying: (1) how Open Education Resources (OERs) can be used to increase the availability of educational materials, (2) what motivations are behind their adoption and usage in classrooms, and (3) what barriers impede said adoption. However, there is relatively little work investigating the motives and barriers to contribution in OER.
Objectives: Our goal is to understand what motivates and dissuades instructors to contribute to and adopt OERs. Additionally, we wish to know what would increase the likelihood of instructors contributing their work to OER repositories.
Method: We conduct a 10 question survey with computing instructors on OER, with a heavy emphasis on what would lead to OER contributions. Using thematic analysis, we mine the broad themes from our respondents and group them into broader topical areas.
Findings: Novel contributions include discussions of what faculty are not willing to share as readily — in particular, exam questions are of concern due to possible student cheating — as well as discussions of different views on monetary and non-monetary (e.g., promotion and tenure value) incentives for contributing to OER efforts. With respect to the kinds of OER faculty want to use, findings line up with prior literature.
Implications: As course materials become more sophisticated and the range of topics taught in computing continue to grow, the communal effort required to maintain a broad collection of high quality OERs also grows. Understanding what factors influence instructors to contribute to this effort and how we can facilitate the contribution, discovery, and use of OERs is fundamental to both how OER repositories should be organized, as well as how funding initiatives to support them should be structured.
References
[1]
2022. ACM SIGCSE. https://sigcse.org/membership
[2]
2023. LibreTexts. https://libretexts.org/
[3]
2023. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/
[4]
IS Abeywardena, G Dhanarajan, and Chee Seng Chan. 2012. Searching and locating OER: Barriers to the wider adoption of OER for teaching in Asia. In Proceedings from the Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: An Asian perspective on policy and practices. 19–21.
[5]
Maimoona H Al Abri, Brenda Bannan, and Nada Dabbagh. 2022. The design and development of an open educational resources intervention in a college course that manifests in open educational practices: a design-based research study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education (2022), 1–35.
[6]
Gregory Allen, Alberto Guzman-Alvarez, Amy Smith, Alan Gamage, Marco Molinaro, and Delmar S Larsen. 2015. Evaluating the effectiveness of the open-access ChemWiki resource as a replacement for traditional general chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 16, 4 (2015), 939–948.
[7]
I Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman. 2014. Opening the Curriculum: Open Educational Resources in US Higher Education, 2014.Babson Survey Research Group (2014).
[8]
I Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman. 2016. Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in US Higher Education, 2015-16.ERIC.
[9]
Olga Maria Belikov and Robert Bodily. 2016. Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open praxis 8, 3 (2016), 235–246.
[10]
TJ Bliss, John Hilton III, David Wiley, and Kim Thanos. 2013. The cost and quality of open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and students. (2013).
[11]
William G Bowen, Matthew M Chingos, Kelly A Lack, and Thomas I Nygren. 2014. Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy analysis and Management 33, 1 (2014), 94–111.
[12]
Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319–340.
[13]
EngageCSEdu. 2023. Engagement Practices |EngageCSEdu. www.engage-csedu.org/index.php/engagement_practices.
[14]
Barbara J Ericson and Bradley N Miller. 2020. Runestone: A platform for free, on-line, and interactive ebooks. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1012–1018.
[15]
Andrew P Feldstein DPS, Mirta Martin, Amy Hudson, Kiara Warren, John Hilton III, David Wiley, 2012. Open textbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (2012).
[16]
Dan Garcia, Armando Fox, Solomon Russell, Edwin Ambrosio, Neal Terrell, Mariana Silva, Matthew West, Craig Zilles, and Fuzail Shakir. 2023. A’s for All (As Time and Interest Allow). In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569847
[17]
Scott D. Halpern, Rachel Kohn, Aaron Dornbrand-Lo, Thomas Metkus, David A. Asch, and Kevin G. Volpp. 2011. Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians’ response to surveys: lottery-based versus fixed incentives. Health Services Research 46, 5 (Oct. 2011), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01264.x
[18]
Dalia Hanna, Abdolreza Abhari, and Alexander Ferworn. 2017. Comparing quantitative and comment-based ratings for recommending open educational resources. In Proceedings of the 20th Communications & Networking Symposium(CNS ’17). Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA, USA, 1–10.
[19]
John Hilton. 2016. Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational technology research and development 64 (2016), 573–590.
[20]
John Hilton III, TJ Bliss, T Jared Robinson, and David A Wiley. 2013. An OER COUP: College teacher and student perceptions of open educational resources. (2013).
[21]
John Hilton III and Carol Laman. 2012. One college’s use of an open psychology textbook. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 27, 3 (2012), 265–272.
[22]
Gary Hsieh and Rafał Kocielnik. 2016. You Get Who You Pay for: The Impact of Incentives on Participation Bias. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819936
[23]
Susan R. Jones, Vasti Torres, and Jan Arminio. 2013. Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues, second edition. 1 – 235 pages. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123836
[24]
Cynthia Bailey Lee and Beth Simon. 2022. Peer Instruction for Computer Science. http://peerinstruction4cs.com. Accessed: 2022-07-28.
[25]
Brian L Lindshield and Koushik Adhikari. 2013. Online and campus college students like using an open educational resource instead of a traditional textbook. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, 1 (2013), 26–38.
[26]
Andrew Mao, Ece Kamar, Yiling Chen, Eric Horvitz, Megan Schwamb, Chris Lintott, and Arfon Smith. 2013. Volunteering versus work for pay: Incentives and tradeoffs in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 1. 94–102.
[27]
MERLOT. 2023. MERLOT. merlot.org/merlot.
[28]
Brad Miller and David Ranum. 2014. Runestone interactive: tools for creating interactive course materials. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. 213–214.
[29]
Sanjaya Mishra. 2017. Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance education 38, 3 (2017), 369–380.
[30]
Joel Samson Mtebe and Roope Raisamo. 2014. Challenges and instructors’ intention to adopt and use open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. International review of research in open and distributed learning 15, 1 (2014), 249–271.
[31]
Rosa Navarrete and Diana Martínez-Mosquera. 2020. Overcoming Barriers for OER Adoption in Higher Education Application to Computer Science Curricula. In CSEDU (1). 559–566.
[32]
Shaul Oreg and Oded Nov. 2008. Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 5 (2008), 2055–2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.007 Including the Special Issue: Internet Empowerment.
[33]
Nayantara Padhi. 2018. Acceptance and usability of OER in India: An investigation using UTAUT model. Open Praxis 10, 1 (2018), 55–65.
[34]
Nick Parlante, John K Estell, David Reed, David Levine, Dan Garcia, and Julie Zelenski. 2002. Nifty assignments. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 1 (2002), 319–320.
[35]
Nancy Pawlyshyn, Dr Braddlee, L Casper, and H Miller. 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of crossinstitutional collaboration and innovation. Educause Review (2013).
[36]
Tanya Percy and Jean-Paul Van Belle. 2012. Exploring the barriers and enablers to the use of open educational resources by university academics in Africa. In Open Source Systems: Long-Term Sustainability: 8th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2012, Hammamet, Tunisia, September 10-13, 2012. Proceedings 8. Springer, 112–128.
[37]
Jeffrey A. Roberts, Il-Horn Hann, and Sandra A. Slaughter. 2006. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: a longitudinal study of the apache projects. Management Science 52, 7 (July 2006), 984–999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0554
[38]
Vivien Rolfe. 2012. Open educational resources: staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology 20 (2012).
[39]
Niall Sclater. 2011. Open educational resources: Motivations, logistics and sustainability. Content management for e-learning (2011), 179–193.
[40]
Julia E Seaman and Jeff Seaman. 2017. Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in US Higher Education, 2017.Babson Survey Research Group (2017).
[41]
Julia E Seaman and Jeff Seaman. 2020. Inflection Point: Educational Resources in US Higher Education, 2019.Bay View Analytics (2020).
[42]
Julia E Seaman and Jeff Seaman. 2021. Digital Texts in the Time of COVID: Educational Resources in US Higher Education, 2020.Bay View Analytics (2021).
[43]
Lassaad Smirani and Jihane Boulahia. 2022. Using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to investigate the adoption of open educational resources by faculty members. International Journal of Information Technology 14, 6 (2022), 3201–3211.
[44]
David H Smith IV, Qiang Hao, Christopher D Hundhausen, Filip Jagodzinski, Josh Myers-Dean, and Kira Jaeger. 2021. Towards modeling student engagement with interactive computing textbooks: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 914–920.
[45]
Hengtao Tang, Yu-Ju Lin, and Yingxiao Qian. 2020. Understanding K-12 teachers’ intention to adopt open educational resources: A mixed methods inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 6 (2020), 2558–2572.
[46]
Joseph Taylor and Ramakrishna Dantu. 2022. For Love or Money? Examining Reasons behind OSS Developers’ Contributions. Information Systems Management 39, 2 (2022), 122 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1879323
[47]
Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
[48]
Beth Tillinghast. 2020. Developing an Open Educational Resource and Exploring OER-Enabled Pedagogy in Higher Education.IAFOR Journal of Education 8, 2 (2020), 159–174.
[49]
Beth Tillinghast. 2021. Using a technology acceptance model to analyze faculty adoption and application of open educational resources. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources 4, 1 (2021).
[50]
Oksana Tokarchuk, Roberta Cuel, and Marco Zamarian. 2012. Analyzing Crowd Labor and Designing Incentives for Humans in the Loop. IEEE Internet Computing 16, 5 (2012), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.66
[51]
UNESCO. 2002. Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries. 3 (2002).
[52]
UNESCO. 2019. Recommendation on Open Educational Resources. 3 (2019).
[53]
Aditya Vashistha, Edward Cutrell, and William Thies. 2015. Increasing the Reach of Snowball Sampling: The Impact of Fixed versus Lottery Incentives. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1359–1363. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675148
[54]
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly (2003), 425–478.
[55]
Viswanath Venkatesh, James YL Thong, and Xin Xu. 2016. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the association for Information Systems 17, 5 (2016), 328–376.
[56]
Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Craig Zilles. 2015. PrairieLearn: Mastery-based Online Problem Solving with Adaptive Scoring and Recommendations Driven by Machine Learning. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE Conferences, Seattle, Washington.
[57]
Matthew West, Nathan Walters, Mariana Silva, Timothy Bretl, and Craig Zilles. 2021. Integrating diverse learning tools using the prairielearn platform. In Seventh SPLICE Workshop at SIGCSE.
[58]
David Wiley. 2014. The Access Compromise and the 5th R. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221
[59]
David Wiley, John Levi Hilton III, Shelley Ellington, and Tiffany Hall. 2012. A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of using open textbooks in middle and high school science classes. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13, 3 (2012), 262–276.
[60]
Julie Willems and Carina Bossu. 2012. Equity considerations for open educational resources in the glocalization of education. Distance Education 33, 2 (2012), 185–199.
[61]
Yueqing Yin and Lei Fan. 2011. Trends of open educational resources in higher education. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Hybrid learning(ICHL’11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 146–156.
[62]
Craig Zilles, David P Bunde, Jaime Spacco, Cynthia Lee, Leo Porter, and Cynthia Taylor. 2022. Spiffy Peer Instruction Questions. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1226–1227.
[63]
Craig Zilles, Matthew West, David Mussulman, and Timothy Bretl. 2018. Making testing less trying: Lessons learned from operating a Computer-Based Testing Facility. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference. San Jose, California.
Index Terms
- "I Don't Gamble To Make My Livelihood": Understanding the Incentives For, Needs Of, and Motivations Surrounding Open Educational Resources in Computing
Recommendations
Metadata Analysis of Open Educational Resources
LAK21: LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge ConferenceOpen Educational Resources (OERs) are openly licensed educational materials that are widely used for learning. Nowadays, many online learning repositories provide millions of OERs. Therefore, it is exceedingly difficult for learners to find the most ...
An Open Perspective for Educational Games
In the field of computers in education, educational digital games have potential to involve more issues of motivation and involvement, considering their possibilities for higher level of interaction and engagement. However, years of research have shown ...
The Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Free Learning for All Students
ICALT '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning TechnologiesIn recent years, the term Open Educational Resources (OER) has emerged, aiming to promote open access to digital educational resources that are available online for everyone at a global level. This panel presents views from different countries on the ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2023
520 pages
ISBN:9781450399760
DOI:10.1145/3568813
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 10 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICER 2023
ICER 2023: ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 7 - 11, 2023
IL, Chicago, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 62Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)43
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format