Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives
Authors
Teresa Schultz
(University of Nevada, Reno)
Elena Azadbakht
(University of Nevada, Reno)
Kathleen Anderson
(University of Nevada, Reno)
Abstract
Case studies have demonstrated various ways in which academic librarians support open pedagogy, but little has been done to look at the bigger picture of what this support entails. This study surveyed 145 US and Canadian academic librarians about how comfortable they are with the concept of open pedagogy and whether they have supported it, along with what that support has looked like. The study also sought to understand what factors might affect this support, as well as how these librarians themselves could be better supported. Results show that a majority of respondents are at least somewhat comfortable with open pedagogy and have even supported it in at least one course. Respondents also expressed an interest in supporting open pedagogy in the future, but many expressed a desire for more resources and professional development.
Keywords: Open pedagogy, Information literacy, Instruction, Open Education, Academic Libraries
How to Cite:
Schultz, T., Azadbakht, E. & Anderson, K.,
(2025) “Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives”,
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education 3(1),
88-104.
doi: https://doi.org/10.31274/joerhe.17783
Schultz,
T , Azadbakht,
E & Anderson,
K.
(2025) 'Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives',
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education.
3(1)
:88-104.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17783
Schultz,
T , Azadbakht,
E & Anderson,
K.
Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives. Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. 2025 1;
3(1)
:88-104.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17783
Schultz,
T Azadbakht,
E
& Anderson,
K.
(2025, 1 10). Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives.
Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education
3(1)
:88-104.
doi: 10.31274/joerhe.17783
The article is in scope with the journal, as it brings together librarianship in higher education and open pedagogy. The topic is novel and important because it presents open education as a pedagogical practice that librarians can adopt in their information literacy instruction work, which has not been much exploredin research yet.
Organization
The article proceeds logically, with all sections of a recommended article structure. The section’s title and sub-titles are used appropriately and when needed. The abstract adequately summarizes the article, and the introduction and conclusion reflect the argument presented in the main text.
The article uses eight figures and tables to present the results. I would recommend adding labels to some figures x and y axis, for better readability. Also, for accessibility, Figure 6 and Figure 7,both presenting four graphs, should be dividedinto distinct figures with individual titles. But considering that the article guidelines recommend up to four (4) figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, the authors should create appendices for any additional figures or tables that exceed the recommended guidelines.
Additionally, the survey instrument should be uploaded as supplementary electronic files, as prescribed in the article guidelines.
Methodology, Approach, Conclusions
The article is accurate and presents the results from their data collection, which was done in the form of a survey. The authors explained how they proceeded with their analysis and the tools they used. The analysis is sound and complete. The authors attached their data collection instrument and, in the spirit of open science and transparency, shared their data, which has been uploaded to an open repository.
Because they did not mention the research design in the submittedarticle, I suggested that they add a sentence or two on why they selected a quantitative methodology.
The article mostly uses the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education as the foundational reference document for information literacy in the article. The authors also reference some case studies of the application of open pedagogy in the context of information literacy instruction. Regarding open pedagogy, the authorsprovided limited references to the theory behind it and what it entails in practice. I suggested that the authors add on the subject by using some seminal work on the topic, such as:
Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources. Educational Technology, 55(4), 3–13.
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
This will help the reader better understand what open pedagogy is and how it can be used by librarians for information literacy instruction.
Writing Style, References
The article reads well, and the references follow the APA citation style. No major issues with writing style or references are to be noted.
Application
As an exploratory study on how comfortable librarians are with the concept of open pedagogy and whether they have supported it, along with what that support has looked like in their institutional libraries, thearticle provides knowledge on the status of open pedagogy in libraries in the U.S. and Canada that is useful for future actions. The results show that there is interest and a need formore resources and professional development on the topic. It also provides interesting points on the role librarians play in the open education ecosystem.
What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?
The article focuses on a novel topic, which is open pedagogy and librarianship. We know how involved librarians are with OER advocacy and creation support, but open pedagogy has been less explored in scientific literature so far. Without providing groundbreaking results and recommendations, the article is robust in its analysis and adds to the scarce literature on the topic.
What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?
As mentioned, the article could benefit from a deeper explanation of open pedagogy and its principles, and how it relates to information literacy instruction. I would suggest expanding the literature review, especially on the concept of open pedagogy.
Note: This review refers to round of peer
review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.
Open peer review from Stephen Krueger
Scope, Objectives, Content
This article is an excellent fit for the journal. It focuses on open pedagogy, which is an increasingly important area of open education. By broadly surveying librarians on the role of open pedagogy in their work, this article provides valuable information as well as a number of points that could be built on with future research.
Organization
The article structure makes sense as written and adheres to a conventional model.
Methodology, Approach, Conclusions
The methodology and conclusions seem reasonable (this reviewer is not a data expert and so can't speak to the statistical section). The authors explain their choices around data analysis, and are clear about both numbers and percentages for the results. The survey is contextualized in existing publications on open education and library work to explain why the authors chose the topic of a broad survey on open pedagogy.
The conclusions are reasonable based on the results, but it would be worth reiterating in the discussion and/or conclusion sections that the responses may be heavily skewed towards library workers already familiar with open education due to the lists the survey was disseminated through.
Writing Style, References
The writing style is very readable and flows well, with no issues around grammar or punctuation.
Application
The article identifies patterns and barriers of how librarians are and are not supporting open pedagogy. This information can be used by individuals, institutions, and organizations interested in removing those barriers (such as time and funding, or resources for learning).
What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?
This article is relevant to current issues in open education and library work; research around how open pedagogy is being practiced and supported will help future efforts in this field. The study strikes a good balance of useful detail without being too specialized to be broadly applicable. As a librarian working primarily in open education, I found the article very useful to read.
What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?
The points below are all relatively minor.
An additional limitation that seems likely to have skewed the responses towards people with higher awareness and engagement in open pedagogy is that the survey was distributed to several lists used primarily or exclusively by librarians working in open education already. This should be noted in the Limitations section.
In figures 1, 2, and 5, switching the order of the items in the Y axis (so the answers with the highest responses are at the top) would make the results clearer to the reader. Captioning the graphs with the question from the survey, rather than a summary of the topic, would also make the responses easier to understand.
Since the survey asked if respondants came from the US or Canada, it could be useful to include the results to that question along with any variation by region in the other questions; if there is a reason not to or if there is no difference, that could be noted. Asking the question but not including the results at all is a bit odd.
Two of the questions in the appendix survey instrument are missing response text in the first option.
The second paragraph in "Supported OP" is a little confusing; it is unclear how respondents who worked on multiple projects expressed who initiated them.
In the final paragraph in "Supported OP," it would be valuable to include all of the outcomes from the question with percentages.
In the first paragraph of "Looking Ahead," it might make sense to acknowledge that the self-assessment nature of the question means that lack of awareness may or may not map to actual lack of available resources.
A "future research" portion would be valuable, even if only a paragraph; the reader can certainly come up with ways to build on this study, but learning what those most familiar with it see as the next steps would be a good addition to the conclusion.
Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant
Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear
Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes
Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
appropriate
Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
sound
Note: This review refers to round of peer
review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.
<p>Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.</p>
