Open in Higher Education: Student Experiences and Perceptions of OER

Scope, Objectives, Content

The article fits the scope of the journal. It explores undergraduate student’s experiences with OERs from an accessibility perspective. The authors also attempt to correlate experiences using OER with levels of confidence using other OERs. Students' perspectives and experiences with OER is an important topic.  

Organization

The article proceeds somewhat logically. The conclusion was placed before the discussion, which should be inverted. I also recommend that the authors add a short limitations section to the article.

The article uses some tables to present the quantitative data, which helps the reader to understand the results.  

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The methodology chosen is accurate for the question. The authors used a survey with quantitative and qualitative questions. They use statistics and Pearson’s correlation coefficient to analyze and present their results.

The authors present limited results from their qualitative data.

I think the analysis is sound, but considering the small sample, the results should be presented with more nuances.

The article is somewhat accurate. The authors have provided a brief literature review without digging deeper into the concepts of accessibility and OER. A more thorough literature review would be beneficial to the article.  

The results section mainly focuses on the levels of students using OERs, but the topic is not presented in a theoretical way in the literature review. Explanations of the concept and links to the concept of accessibility would benefit the literature review section.

Writing Style, References

The article does not always flow smoothly. I would recommend the authors revise their syntax for a more enjoyable reading experience. Grammar and punctuation will need to be corrected.

Overall, the paragraphs are structured logically, except for the conclusion and discussion (see comments below).

References are presented in APA style. There are minor corrections to be made. 

Application

In its current form, the article contributes little knowledge that will inform practice.

There’s a lack of examples from the data to help better understand the accessibility barriers. Also, the “level of confidence” portion is not well defined. What are the confidence range levels? What does it mean in practice for the students?

The weakness of the discussion and conclusion sections impacts the possible application of the article.  

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The topic of the article is interesting because it addresses the students' experiences with OER, which is still sparse in the literature. I appreciate the authors' attempt to explore the accessibility and inclusivity of OER with disabled or neurodivergent students.  

I also appreciate that this research was part of an undergraduate research project. It is important to highlight the work of students and early-career researchers. 

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

Some weaker points of the article have already been mentioned, but to summarize:

• The literature review needs to be expanded. The concept of confidence using OER is not covered and the concept of accessibility, regarding OERs, needs to be developed. The authors mention four accessibility principles in OERs (perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust), without explaining their meaning and purpose. I recommend adding a whole paragraph on accessible principles of OER. As it is the main topic of the article, there’s a need to better define the potential barriers, and what it means to be a disabled student (spectrum of physical and psychological disabilities). What would be the features of an accessible OER? Depending on the type of OER, this could change. Adding examples would be beneficial to the readers.


• The article is presented as being on student’s accessibility barriers of OERs, but a lot of the results focus on the confidence levels and experiences of students using OER. The link between the two concepts is not well articulated and would need refining. 


• The discussion section is not well developed. I recommend that the authors rewrite this section with a critical lens regarding their results. What do they tell us? How can it inform our practices with OERs?


• I would recommend that the authors add a limitations section, to explain the limits of their study and their data. 


• For transparency, I suggest that the authors add their survey instrument as an additional file. 

Overall, the article needs major revisions to bring it to its best possible shape. Considering that it is currently about 3000 words, there’s word space for adding content.

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
not clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
not sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×