I’ve been doing some reading to prep for a conference presentation in February, and I thought I’d share some findings about barriers to OER adoption. I particularly liked this study when I came across it in my research because of the methodology that was used. This study coded and cataloged free response questions instead of offering the Likert seven point scale for respondents. It could only be better, in my book, if it were a meta-analysis of a bunch of quality or student performance studies… Read “Incentives and Barriers to OER Adoption: A Qualitative Analysis of Faculty Perceptions” for yourself here:

http://www.openpraxis.org/~openprax/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/viewFile/308/219

Summary

The article codes and analyzes responses from 218 US faculty members who left comment on the end of a general perceptions study about OER. The comments were analyzed for statements regarding the barriers to OER adoption and what most incentivized them to adopt OER materials. The article begins by positioning itself as different by offering a review of other studies that cover perceptions of OER quality after use (from both a student and faculty perspective) and studies that survey a general population of faculty about OER (this second group of faculty may or may not have experience with OER). The findings presented in Belikov & Bodily’s  study differ from the literature available because of the data set and methodology. They posit that their methods will provide a more nuanced view of perceptions and barriers. It seems that they do, although their sample size may not be representative of the general population of academics across institutions.

Some of the findings from Belikov & Bodily’s qualitative analysis that I found most interesting are:

• Many faculty, even those who have used OER, do not display a full understanding of the difference between free online resources and OER.
• Even those who are comfortable using OER are not always comfortable making their own materials OERs.
• Faculty who did not use OER state mostly that they needed more information about OER to decide to use them.
• Often the difficulty of finding good resources and the time it takes to evaluate and then compile from various places was a road block for adoption.
• Faculty who understand the cost savings to students and can find resources that are as good as traditional texts are most likely to adopt OER.

Response

The three main barriers identified “lack of information,…lack of discoverability…, and confusing OER with digital resources”  to adoption of OERs by faculty seem to be the barriers I’ve come up against myself as I’ve attempted to move to OER for my comp classes (Belikov & Bodily 239). In the first semester, I just had trouble finding them, and I definitely lumped all digital resources together. Now I am much more educated on this topic, and have found that the more I do the more I understand the Open part of the OER initiative started at MIT in the early 2000’s.

The incentives, “student cost benefits,… student pedagogical benefits…, and institutional support for adoption of OER”  likewise are things I’ve experienced and considered (Belikov & Bodily 239). I’ve been pleasantly surprised by losing a couple less students in the first few weeks because nobody can fall behind on readings due to not being able to afford the book yet. I still lose some, as is to be expected, but this is one less barrier to student success. They can learn to the best of their ability from day one, not to the best of their access. This small benefit seems to even out over the course of studies that cover broad ranges of students, as cost of books is not the only barrier to success, but even if it helps one student per semester, I’ll take the small sample size as proof that it’s worth it, to me.

The support I have received from our librarians has been phenomenal, and is one of the major reasons my experience as a beginning OER user in ENG 111 led me to another OER option for ENG 112. Without the support I’ve received from the librarians at NMC, OER would just be a thing I heard about at a conference that sounded like a lot of work, and not a critical part of my pedagogy.