社论:开放教育资源的观点

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Charlotte H. Stevens, C. Douce
{"title":"社论:开放教育资源的观点","authors":"Charlotte H. Stevens, C. Douce","doi":"10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the first 2023 issue of Open Learning. This issue broadly concerns the use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) in a number of contexts. Depending on how OERs are used or structured, there are cross overs between the notions of an OER and a MOOC. The boundaries between these two related concepts can be seen to be expressed and explored through most of the papers that can be found in this issue. Readers will also recognise other familiar themes such as blended learning, and continuing professional development (CPD). This issue begins with a paper by Tierney Kinnison et al. (2023) which is a case study entitled ‘Multi-level impact of continuing professional development on Sri Lanka’s veterinary sector’. The paper assesses the impact of continuing professional development at different levels, such as individual, organisational and societal. It adopts a multimethod qualitative approach, grounded in the framework for evaluating teaching programmes developed by Kirkpatrick (1998), and comprises structured interviews and focus groups. The authors give careful consideration to the limitations of their study, which reflect the case study methodology they adopt. Researchers who are making use of case studies may wish to use this study to contribute to a wider set of perspectives when understanding similar or contrasting contexts. The next paper is by Margaret Verkuyl and her colleagues (2023) from Centennial College and Ryerson University, which are both located in Toronto, Canada. It is interesting to compare this paper with Kinnison et al.’s paper, particularly in terms of methodology; they both adopt a case study approach, as well as focus groups, and apply thematic analysis. The focus of Verkuyl et al.’s paper concerns healthcare students, specifically their experiences of using an interactive Open Educational Resource, an instructive medical e-textbook focused on ‘vital signs’, which was developed by a team of nursing educators and a nursing student. The authors identify a range of interesting themes, including learning styles, design and accessibility. This latter theme of accessibility can be interpreted in several different ways. In the context of this study, it translates as pace and portability. Verkuyl et al.’s paper is followed by a contrasting article by Irina Rets, and her colleagues (2023) from The Open University, UK (OU). Whilst the first two papers present qualitative case studies, this article considers a different notion of accessibility to Verkuyl et al., and presents some interesting empirical research that is concerned with the readability of Open Educational Resources. The authors examine 200 OER courses from two different sources, The Open University’s OpenLearn platform, and that of the non-profit organisation, The Saylor Academy. In order to test readability, a substantial portion of a resource is uploaded into a textual analysis tool, where the results are collated and then OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2023, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318","PeriodicalId":46089,"journal":{"name":"Open Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editorial: perspectives on open educational resources\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte H. Stevens, C. Douce\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Welcome to the first 2023 issue of Open Learning. This issue broadly concerns the use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) in a number of contexts. Depending on how OERs are used or structured, there are cross overs between the notions of an OER and a MOOC. The boundaries between these two related concepts can be seen to be expressed and explored through most of the papers that can be found in this issue. Readers will also recognise other familiar themes such as blended learning, and continuing professional development (CPD). This issue begins with a paper by Tierney Kinnison et al. (2023) which is a case study entitled ‘Multi-level impact of continuing professional development on Sri Lanka’s veterinary sector’. The paper assesses the impact of continuing professional development at different levels, such as individual, organisational and societal. It adopts a multimethod qualitative approach, grounded in the framework for evaluating teaching programmes developed by Kirkpatrick (1998), and comprises structured interviews and focus groups. The authors give careful consideration to the limitations of their study, which reflect the case study methodology they adopt. Researchers who are making use of case studies may wish to use this study to contribute to a wider set of perspectives when understanding similar or contrasting contexts. The next paper is by Margaret Verkuyl and her colleagues (2023) from Centennial College and Ryerson University, which are both located in Toronto, Canada. It is interesting to compare this paper with Kinnison et al.’s paper, particularly in terms of methodology; they both adopt a case study approach, as well as focus groups, and apply thematic analysis. The focus of Verkuyl et al.’s paper concerns healthcare students, specifically their experiences of using an interactive Open Educational Resource, an instructive medical e-textbook focused on ‘vital signs’, which was developed by a team of nursing educators and a nursing student. The authors identify a range of interesting themes, including learning styles, design and accessibility. This latter theme of accessibility can be interpreted in several different ways. In the context of this study, it translates as pace and portability. Verkuyl et al.’s paper is followed by a contrasting article by Irina Rets, and her colleagues (2023) from The Open University, UK (OU). Whilst the first two papers present qualitative case studies, this article considers a different notion of accessibility to Verkuyl et al., and presents some interesting empirical research that is concerned with the readability of Open Educational Resources. The authors examine 200 OER courses from two different sources, The Open University’s OpenLearn platform, and that of the non-profit organisation, The Saylor Academy. In order to test readability, a substantial portion of a resource is uploaded into a textual analysis tool, where the results are collated and then OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2023, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318\",\"PeriodicalId\":46089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欢迎阅读《开放学习》2023年第一期。这个问题广泛地涉及到开放教育资源(OERs)在许多情况下的使用。根据OER的使用或结构,OER和MOOC的概念之间存在交叉。这两个相关概念之间的界限可以通过本期中可以找到的大多数论文来表达和探讨。读者还将认识到其他熟悉的主题,如混合学习和持续专业发展(CPD)。这个问题始于Tierney Kinnison等人(2023)的一篇论文,这是一个名为“斯里兰卡兽医部门持续专业发展的多层次影响”的案例研究。本文评估了持续专业发展在不同层面的影响,如个人、组织和社会。它采用多方法定性方法,以Kirkpatrick(1998)开发的评估教学计划的框架为基础,包括结构化访谈和焦点小组。作者仔细考虑了他们研究的局限性,这反映了他们采用的案例研究方法。正在使用案例研究的研究人员可能希望在理解相似或对比的背景时,使用本研究来促进更广泛的视角。下一篇论文是来自加拿大多伦多的百年纪念学院和瑞尔森大学的Margaret Verkuyl和她的同事(2023年)发表的。将这篇论文与Kinnison等人的论文进行比较是很有趣的,特别是在方法论方面;他们都采用了案例研究的方法,以及焦点小组,并应用主题分析。Verkuyl等人的论文关注的是卫生保健专业的学生,特别是他们使用交互式开放教育资源的经验,这是一个由护理教育工作者和护理学生组成的团队开发的以“生命体征”为重点的有益医学电子教科书。作者确定了一系列有趣的主题,包括学习风格、设计和可访问性。可访问性的后一个主题可以用几种不同的方式来解释。在本研究中,它被翻译为速度和便携性。Verkuyl等人的论文之后是来自英国开放大学(OU)的Irina Rets及其同事(2023)的一篇对比文章。虽然前两篇论文提出了定性案例研究,但本文考虑了Verkuyl等人对可访问性的不同概念,并提出了一些与开放教育资源的可读性有关的有趣的实证研究。作者研究了来自两个不同来源的200门OER课程,一个是开放大学的OpenLearn平台,另一个是非营利组织The Saylor Academy。为了测试可读性,资源的很大一部分被上传到文本分析工具中,在那里结果被整理,然后开放学习:开放,远程和电子学习杂志2023,卷38,NO。1,1 - 3 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Editorial: perspectives on open educational resources
Welcome to the first 2023 issue of Open Learning. This issue broadly concerns the use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) in a number of contexts. Depending on how OERs are used or structured, there are cross overs between the notions of an OER and a MOOC. The boundaries between these two related concepts can be seen to be expressed and explored through most of the papers that can be found in this issue. Readers will also recognise other familiar themes such as blended learning, and continuing professional development (CPD). This issue begins with a paper by Tierney Kinnison et al. (2023) which is a case study entitled ‘Multi-level impact of continuing professional development on Sri Lanka’s veterinary sector’. The paper assesses the impact of continuing professional development at different levels, such as individual, organisational and societal. It adopts a multimethod qualitative approach, grounded in the framework for evaluating teaching programmes developed by Kirkpatrick (1998), and comprises structured interviews and focus groups. The authors give careful consideration to the limitations of their study, which reflect the case study methodology they adopt. Researchers who are making use of case studies may wish to use this study to contribute to a wider set of perspectives when understanding similar or contrasting contexts. The next paper is by Margaret Verkuyl and her colleagues (2023) from Centennial College and Ryerson University, which are both located in Toronto, Canada. It is interesting to compare this paper with Kinnison et al.’s paper, particularly in terms of methodology; they both adopt a case study approach, as well as focus groups, and apply thematic analysis. The focus of Verkuyl et al.’s paper concerns healthcare students, specifically their experiences of using an interactive Open Educational Resource, an instructive medical e-textbook focused on ‘vital signs’, which was developed by a team of nursing educators and a nursing student. The authors identify a range of interesting themes, including learning styles, design and accessibility. This latter theme of accessibility can be interpreted in several different ways. In the context of this study, it translates as pace and portability. Verkuyl et al.’s paper is followed by a contrasting article by Irina Rets, and her colleagues (2023) from The Open University, UK (OU). Whilst the first two papers present qualitative case studies, this article considers a different notion of accessibility to Verkuyl et al., and presents some interesting empirical research that is concerned with the readability of Open Educational Resources. The authors examine 200 OER courses from two different sources, The Open University’s OpenLearn platform, and that of the non-profit organisation, The Saylor Academy. In order to test readability, a substantial portion of a resource is uploaded into a textual analysis tool, where the results are collated and then OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2023, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2152318
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Learning
Open Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信