Dataset Information

Do open educational resources improve student learning? Implications of the access hypothesis.

ABSTRACT: Open Educational Resources (OER) have been lauded for their ability to reduce student costs and improve equity in higher education. Research examining whether OER provides learning benefits have produced mixed results, with most studies showing null effects. We argue that the common methods used to examine OER efficacy are unlikely to detect positive effects based on predictions of the access hypothesis. The access hypothesis states that OER benefits learning by providing access to critical course materials, and therefore predicts that OER should only benefit students who would not otherwise have access to the materials. Through the use of simulation analysis, we demonstrate that even if there is a learning benefit of OER, standard research methods are unlikely to detect it.

SUBMITTER: Grimaldi PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6402753 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do open educational resources improve student learning? Implications of the access hypothesis.

Grimaldi Phillip J PJ Basu Mallick Debshila D Waters Andrew E AE Baraniuk Richard G RG

PloS one 20190306 3

Open Educational Resources (OER) have been lauded for their ability to reduce student costs and improve equity in higher education. Research examining whether OER provides learning benefits have produced mixed results, with most studies showing null effects. We argue that the common methods used to examine OER efficacy are unlikely to detect positive effects based on predictions of the access hypothesis. The access hypothesis states that OER benefits learning by providing access to critical cour ...[more]

PMID: 30840653

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Social Media (SM) for academic information seeking is common among undergraduates nowadays. There is limited data on OER and SM use for education in Sri Lanka. This study was aimed at evaluating the OER and SM use for education among the medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya. Stratified random sampling was used to select students from the first year to the final year. A self-administrated questionnaire was used to collect data.ResultsThe study included 257 responses (response rate: 89.5%), of which 185 (72.0%) were females. The OER and SM use for educational purposes at least once a month among students was 96.1% (95%CI: 93.7-98.5%) and 88.3% (95%CI: 84.4-92.3%) respectively. There was no gender difference in OER and SM use. The main reasons for accessing OER were the availability of information at any time (36.1%) and ease of information access (31.5%). Wiki sites (84.4%) and Facebook (79.8%) were the highest accessed OER and SM platforms. The majority of students were in view that the information on wiki sites (51.4%) and results of general non-specific web searches (56.0%) were reliable. Only 33.9% of students searched information from educational and government-related sources and 18.7% had accessed e-journals. Through SM, 79.0% joined educational groups and 77.0% followed the medical-related sites, pages and people. More than one-third of students (35.8%) could not find academic information from SM due to the information overload and 31.1% mentioned that SM distracted their education.ConclusionThe majority of the students used OER and SM for education; however, only a minority accessed reliable information. Students accepted information available in wiki sites and general non-specific web searchers without considering the credibility of sources. The majority of the students did not refer to e-journals. Distractions to academic work and the difficulty to access accurate information were major concerns of using SM. This study highlights the importance of improving information literacy among medical students.

Project description:ObjectivesAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant threat to global public health. Many medical curricula have limited clinical cases and materials focused on AMR, yet enhanced AMR education and training are needed to support antimicrobial stewardship programmes. We used crowdsourcing methods to develop open-access, learner-centred AMR resources. Crowdsourcing is the process of having a large group, including experts and non-experts, solve a problem and then share solutions with the public.MethodsWe organised a global crowdsourcing contest soliciting AMR-related multiple-choice questions, infographics, and images. First, we convened a diverse steering committee group to finalise a call for entries. Second, we launched the contest and disseminated the call for entries using social media, blog posts, email, and an in-person event. Partner institutions included two digital healthcare platforms: Figure 1® and Ding Xiang Yuan. Both organizations serve as online communities for healthcare specialists and professionals to report and comment on clinical information. At the end of the call, solicited entries were screened for eligibility and judged on merit and relevance to AMR learning and education. Exceptional entries were recognised, awarded prizes, and further reviewed for sharing with the public via open-access platforms.ResultsWe received 59 entries from nine countries. These included 54 multiple-choice questions, four infographics, and one image. Eligible entries (n = 56) were reviewed and assigned a score on a 1-10 scale. Eight entries received mean scores greater than 6.0 and were selected as finalists. The eight finalist entries consisted of three infographics and five multiple-choice questions. They were disseminated through open-access publications and online medical communities. Although we launched a global call, we relied heavily on medical student groups and the entries received were not entirely globally representative.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that crowdsourcing challenge contests can be used to identify infectious disease teaching materials. Medical educators and curriculum developers can adapt this method to solicit additional teaching content for medical students.

Project description:BackgroundAn unmet medical need exists for many oncology patients who cannot be treated satisfactorily by available therapeutic options. Early access provision (EAP) is endorsed by competent authorities to improve patient access to innovative medicinal products (InMPs). This paper determined awareness and understanding among practicing physicians of integrated EAP protocols, and of the procedures involved in EAP applications for oncology trials prior to marketing authorization.MethodsAn on-line, fully anonymous survey reaching out to more than 3,258 physicians (including practicing oncologists) was initiated between November 2020 - January 2021. Participants were questioned about their knowledge and understanding of EAP and the decision processes involved, level of experience, interest for further educational activities and opportunities to improve the process, both in general and specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The frequency of EAP protocols for oncology InMPs was identified by a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials registers.ResultsSurvey results (75% oncologists) indicated 75% of respondents were 'very comfortable' or 'comfortable' with using EAP for their patients, but only 54.5% correctly answered the specific knowledge-based question related to the EAP definition. For 56% of respondents, experience with EAP in daily practice was very limited. Two-thirds indicated an average or lower level of understanding about the application process and regulatory requirements involved (65.2% and 66.0%, respectively). Knowledge on data collection and serious adverse event reporting under EAP was lower at 57.8% and 50.5% of respondents, respectively. Awareness of physician responsibilities was high in 59.7% of respondents, but fewer understood roles and responsibilities of manufacturing companies (31.2%). Most indicated they would consider clinical efficacy and safety data from comparative phase III randomized controlled trials as of high importance to support their decision to apply for EAP (93.4% and 86.8%, respectively). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of respondents highlighted the need to improve and adapt EAP with regard to the application process and documentation (83.8%), InMP supply and logistics (88.4), and safety reporting process (78.0%). Of identified oncology trials with a ClinicalTrials.gov protocol, only 149 (0.4%) included EAP, and 23 used the data to receive a marketing authorization during the period Jan 2015 to December 2020. Of oncology trials with a EudraCT protocol, only 21 (0.23%) included EAP, of which 6 were used to receive a conditional or full marketing authorisation over the same period.ConclusionUse of EAP in daily practice remains limited. Challenges posed by the EAP process, together with a lack of education on this topic, might contribute to its under-utilization and influence access of oncology patients to care. Continuous educational efforts from different stakeholders are required to better inform and support practicing oncologists during the EAP application process and regulatory framework follow up. Education should also be provided on EAP roles and responsibilities, monitoring, and potential adaptations when faced with specific challenges, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Dataset Information

Do open educational resources improve student learning? Implications of the access hypothesis.

Publications

Do open educational resources improve student learning? Implications of the access hypothesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets