Learning to be open: instructor growth through open pedagogy

ABSTRACT

OER-enabled pedagogy, one form of open pedagogy, is gaining popularity as a method for increasing student engagement and motivation. Realising the potential of this approach, however, depends on faculty implementation and reducing resistance to change. This study explores the experience of instructors during their first and second courses when facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy. Specifically, the research sought to determine how their view of the approach and teaching practices changed between classes, and if this prescribed experience increased their likelihood of using OER-enabled pedagogy in other classes. Interviews with faculty suggest that when teaching OER-enabled pedagogy for the first time, there is a lack of understanding of the value of this approach impacting their perceived mentorship of students. By the second iteration, however, instructors recognise an evolution in their view of teaching generally as well as OER-enabled pedagogy more specifically. This growth increases the quality of interaction with students and fosters broader use of open practices.

KEYWORDS:

• OER-enabled pedagogy
• open pedagogy
• faculty development
• resistance to change

Introduction

Contemporary education requires a shift from instruction relying on passive consumption of material to that which empowers student-learners. This engagement is critical with institutions emphasising increased retention as well as creating positive academic and psychosocial growth opportunities for students (Hanover Research, 2014; Pino-James, 2018). While multiple pedagogical approaches have been touted to accomplish these goals, the field of open pedagogy provides a compelling opportunity to centre students’ experiences and create a more democratic and participatory learning environment (DeRosa & Robison, 2017; Hegarty, 2015; Wiley et al., 2017).

Conceptualising open pedagogy requires knowledge of the 5 R’s of Open Educational Resources (OER): the ability to revise, remix, redistribute, retain, and reuse content (Wiley, 2013). Open pedagogy may be described as, ‘an access-oriented commitment to learner-driven education AND as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that enable students to shape the public knowledge commons of which they are a part’ (DeRosa & Jhangiani, n.d.). Many definitions exist for this practice, however, making it difficult to be sure individuals in the field are speaking about the same concept. To address this issue, Wiley and Hilton (2018) proposed a new term, OER-enabled pedagogy, defined as teaching or learning practices only possible within the 5Rs of OER. Therefore, as a subset of open pedagogy, OER-enabled pedagogy is a Social Constructivist and Connectivist approach (Couros & Hildebrandt, 2016; Hegarty, 2015) that focuses education on the process of learning rather than the act of teaching.

Although strategies such as OER-enabled pedagogy hold great promise in improving education, realisation of this potential depends on faculty support. Research indicates, however, that faculty may be resistant to change. Reasons for this include lack of time or training, uncertainty regarding the value of new approaches, loss of control, institutional or departmental norms that favour the status quo, and fear of failure (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Eickholt, 2018; Gopalan et al., 2018; Hendricks & Wangerin, 2017; Klein et al., 2020; Riihimaki & Viskupic, 2020; Shadle et al., 2017; Yılmaz & Kılıçoğlu, 2013). Faculty who implement new methods, though, find it improves their teaching and those with first-hand experience become more positive about such approaches (Eickholt, 2018; Jaschik & Lederman, 2019; Wingo et al., 2017).

In fall 2019 a liberal arts university in the rural Appalachian region of the United States redeveloped its first-year studies (FS) course to require participation in a project based on OER-enabled pedagogy. All students would collaborate on the creation of artefacts to be included in a ‘college survival guide’ to be made publicly available online. This project was repeated in the 2020/2021 academic year.

Considering the potential of OER-enabled pedagogy for students but the barrier caused by instructor resistance to change, qualitative research was conducted to answer the following questions:

1. How does the experience of instructors required to facilitate OER-enabled pedagogy change from the first time they teach to the second?

2. Does the experience of using OER-enabled pedagogy as a required element of a course impact the likelihood that instructors will use it in other classes?

As such, the main theoretical framework underpinning this research is that of OER-enabled pedagogy, described below.

Literature review

Mentorship as a means of student development

Mentorship of students by faculty is an established practice within higher learning. Often provided at an institutional level (Raposa et al., 2021) or through established formal or informal (Hernandez et al., 2017; Law et al., 2020), mentorship is valuable to student success. Law et al.’s (2020) review breaks down the various mentorship approaches, including psychosocial, formal, and theoretical. Cramer and Prentice-Dunn (2007) write that effective mentors are knowledgeable, have professional and personal goals similar to their mentees, and possess the ability to encourage and support students.

While mentorship of undergraduate students is often thought of as an intentional, programmatic initiative, Cramer and Prentice-Dunn (2007) and Ramirez (2012) both characterise an effective mentor as someone who goes beyond a particular effort on the part of the institution or academic department to engage with an entire class or specific population of students. Nevertheless, faculty mentorship is still often associated with programmes wherein students work with faculty on research (Kardash, 2000; Monarrez et al., 2020). Relatively little research addresses informal mentorship of students or that which occurs within a class but outside of what would normally be considered effective teaching (McKinsey, 2016).

Student empowerment and OER-enabled pedagogy

A common goal of mentorship generally and OER-enabled pedagogy specifically is the development of students’ intellectual and personal self-efficacy. Additionally, both seek to empower students. Empowerment can be thought of as increasing student confidence and perceived abilities in the learning environment. Empowerment and motivation are interrelated, with those who are highly self-regulated often experiencing greater agency (Batool et al., 2019; Brooks & Young, 2011).

OER-enabled pedagogy gives students voice and has been shown to increase self-regulated behaviour (Werth & Williams, 2021b). Broom (2015) writes that open pedagogical course design provides learners with space to explore real-life problems and work collaboratively to find solutions. DeRosa and Robison (2017) note that using open pedagogy moves learning to a student-centred approach by shifting the concept of knowledge from something static to a socially-developed construct in which students may participate. Recent studies indicate that OER-enabled pedagogy may impact a variety of other educational outcomes, such as student creativity, involvement in their own learning, grades, self-directed motivation, student engagement, and skill acquisition (Tillinghast, 2020; Werth & Williams, 2021a, 2021b; Wiley et al., 2017).

OER-enabled pedagogy provides four parameters for faculty interested in integrating more open pedagogical practices into their curricula. To be considered OER-enabled pedagogy, the following criteria must be present:

1. Students are content-creators who remix OER or create their own works,

2. Materials have value beyond the author,

3. The artefacts are made publicly available, and

4. Students are invited to publish under Creative Commons licencing (Wiley & Hilton, 2018).

OER-enabled pedagogy helps faculty with ethical and pragmatic issues that arise from sharing students’ work, such as creators having a choice whether they publicly share their efforts (Elder, 2019; Mays, 2017; Seraphin et al., 2019). As student work has worth beyond the author, the issue of assignments being perceived as ‘disposable’ or valuable only as a grade is reduced (Seraphin et al., 2019).

Resistance to change

Faculty resistance to change is well-documented and multi-faceted. Tagg (2012) posits that resistance can be attributed to risk calculation, loss aversion, and the endowment effect. When faced with change, an individual weighs the perceived benefit versus cost. People will often forego a potential benefit if they fear losing something they value. Individuals also tend to treasure what they view as ‘theirs’ (endowment effect). These factors can lead to the development of a Status Quo Bias, the desire to keep things as they are (Tagg, 2012). Yılmaz and Kılıçoğlu (2013) write that ‘resistance may be blind [against any change], political [viewing change as losing something of importance], or ideological [doubting the efficacy of change]’ (p. 16).

Much literature relates to faculty’s views of the cost versus benefit of curricular changes. The largest hurdles can be attributed to time, training, and incentives (Brownell & Tanner, 2012). Faculty often indicate that they are concerned about the time it takes to change their course content or teaching approach (Eickholt, 2018; Riihimaki & Viskupic, 2020; Shadle et al., 2017). Lack of knowledge to make the change successful is also prevalent (Gopalan et al., 2018; Hendricks & Wangerin, 2017; Shadle et al., 2017). The cost versus benefit dynamic is most visible in the concept of incentives. While lack of incentives is recorded as a barrier (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Eickholt, 2018; Shadle et al., 2017), providing incentives is frequently listed as a method to motivate change (Klein et al., 2020; Yılmaz & Kılıçoğlu, 2013). Other drivers of resistance include loss of autonomy, organisational structures that do not foster innovation, lack of resources, student resistance, and the changing role of faculty (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Hendricks & Wangerin, 2017; Shadle et al., 2017; Sunal et al., 2001; Yılmaz & Kılıçoğlu, 2013).

Barriers to use of OER-enabled pedagogy

Barriers to implementation of OER-enabled pedagogy are similar to those related to change in general, but also include unique challenges based on the nature of the methodology. The time required to rewrite curricula, awareness of the approach, and fluency in openness have been described as obstacles to developing as an open educator (Couros & Hildebrandt, 2016; Cronin, 2017; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016). Related to incentives, questions about the support for this new methodology by senior academic leadership have been raised (Couros & Hildebrandt, 2016; Murphy & Rose, 2018). Use of OER-enabled pedagogy, similar to a shift to student-centred instruction, also requires a change in faculty mindset. Rather than being a source of information which is passively consumed, faculty are mentors as students participate in collaborative construction of knowledge and meaning (Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016).

Unlike other instructional shifts (e.g. active learning, online teaching), OER-enabled pedagogy is unique in that students are co-creators of information which is shared beyond the student-teacher dyad. Faculty and students must be transparent: open to sharing both the process and product of the educational endeavour, participating in peer review, and being reflective. These dynamics generate potential obstacles to implementation such as the concern of peer scrutiny and questions about copyright or content ownership (Martin & Kimmons, 2020; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016).

Materials and methods

Research context

This research was conducted at the University of Pikeville (UPIKE), a liberal arts institution in rural United States. Each year, all new students take a 3-credit first-year studies course (FS). Every section of FS is taught by a different instructor, asked to follow common curricula. OER-enabled pedagogy was added as a mandatory element of this course in fall 2019 and continued through the 2020/2021 year.

In order to prepare faculty for a course using OER-enabled pedagogy, instructors attend a workshop prior to the start of the semester where the approach is introduced, and a detailed explanation of facilitating the class is provided. This workshop was designed and facilitated by UPIKE’s Office of Professional Development, the institutional office charged with assisting faculty in enhancing pedagogical approaches within their courses. Instructors are given access to a master shell from which all relevant instructional material may be copied into their instance of the course in the learning management system. In 2020/2021, researchers also included a facilitation guide. This included assignments and grading rubrics, as well as hints regarding where students may need extra support, drawn from the previous year.

Training and support for faculty continued throughout the semester. In fall 2019, instructors were asked to attend an in-person workshop related to licencing and student attribution of work and were provided with a video on the concept to use in their class. While instructors could contact Professional Development at any time, three drop-in sessions were scheduled. Due to COVID-19, all support sessions in fall 2020 were held via videoconference. Both years, instructors were encouraged to collaborate with one another in a digital learning community.

Study participants

OER-enabled pedagogy was utilised at UPIKE first in fall 2019. Following the fall 2020 semester, instructors who taught both in 2019 and 2020 (n = 6) were interviewed about their experience facilitating the project based on OER-enabled pedagogy in their FS course. Participants (three female and three male) were evenly split as to whether their primary role was full-time faculty or experienced adjunct.

Interviews and theme generation

Interviews lasted approximately 35 minutes and addressed facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy the second versus first time. Questions probed their overall impressions and how their teaching was similar or different. Verbatim transcripts were created from audio recordings and analysed using the program Dedoose. Transcripts were reviewed collaboratively by researchers using an inductive and line-by-line approach (Charmaz, 2012; Skjott Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). Open coding was followed by axial coding to develop categories/themes (Khandkar, n.d.).

Results

To determine how a required experience facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy impacted instructors, interviews were conducted with all six instructors who taught in both 2019 and 2020. Prior to teaching in 2019, instructors were asked about their knowledge of open pedagogy. All of the individuals had little or no knowledge prior to training.

Research question 1

The first research question explored how the experience of instructors facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy changed from the first to second time it was utilised. Three themes emerged from interviews;

1. The first time OER-enabled pedagogy was used, instructors struggled to see the value of the approach.

2. During the first class, instructors felt they were learning with students.

3. After teaching a class with OER-enabled pedagogy once, instructors saw the value of the approach as providing student empowerment, agency, and voice.

In regards to the first theme, instructors indicated that even with support, without first-hand experience they did not fully understand the value of OER-enabled pedagogy. Instructor 4 stated, ‘I would say my clarity on the project was probably 100 times better this [the second] time around.’ This individual continued, ‘It’s kind of like it had to be trial by fire. You just had to go through it, experience it, learn for yourself.’ According to Instructor 2,

One of the big differences I think from last year to this year was I felt like the project last year was your all’s project. I kind of felt like last year I was the student and that I had to check off all these boxes to make sure that I did the project correctly to meet the requirements that you had. This year I felt like, okay I understood it better.

Instructor 5 reflected on his growth between the semesters and how it impacted the way students viewed the activity,

My exposure to pedagogical practices is what kind of had me, almost like you know, lifting a veil from my eyes of sorts. I wasn’t looking at the project from just like you’re just fulfilling a chapter [in the survival guide]. Rather, I was looking at a project of what could be of value and how can we actually convey that value to others, and so my students as a result were seeing the world in a different light.

In addition to not fully understanding the purpose of OER-enabled pedagogy, first-time instructors felt they were learning with the students which impacted their ability to serve as mentors. Instructor 1 typified this sentiment,

I always felt like I was like two weeks behind, three weeks behind on everything and it was kind of like, ‘we all got to get this done’ so let’s, like, you know, we don’t have time for these reflective thoughts, just like how about you do this and how about you do that.

Similarly, Instructor 2 stated, ‘I think the first semester a lot of the confusion was because I was confused and wasn’t as familiar with what we were trying to do, as opposed to this semester I was able, like I said, I was just much more confident.’ This individual continued, ‘I was able to facilitate it with examples and like I had a purpose in what I was doing. Previously it was like, “okay you have these topics we need to do this,” and I felt like I was kind of learning along with them, if that makes sense.’ Instructor 4 connected this learn-as-you-go mentality to their own self-efficacy saying,

I operated from a place of doing something wrong last semester because it was new and I wasn’t comfortable with the format and you know, was learning along with the students. So, I, everything that I did I kind of second-guessed myself.

After teaching the course once, instructors began to more fully understand the potential of OER-enabled pedagogy. Instructor 1 explained, ‘I felt like this time I saw the worth of the project very differently and I saw how it empowered students to voice their own sense of importance. Identity.’ Instructor 5 provided an example of how OER-enabled pedagogy fostered self-direction,

I showed up late to class one day and there was actually a student that was at the front of the classroom and they were writing down different ideas that people were coming up with, completely self-guided. I didn’t even ask or prompt them to do anything like that, but you could tell they were excited about being able to contribute to something that could enrich and add value to someone else’s experience in the future.

Research question 2

The second research question investigated whether using OER-enabled pedagogy as a scripted component of the FS course impacted the likelihood that instructors would use it in other classes. Two themes emerged from interviews,

1. The instructor’s experience with OER-enabled pedagogy made them more confident in implementing this approach in other courses.

2. The technical aspect of sharing student work presents a barrier if support is not provided.

While instructors experienced discomfort during the first iteration of OER-enabled pedagogy, their second exposure was positive and fostered the belief that this method could be transferred to other subjects. Instructor 4 indicated,

It really opened my eyes to what it can be. I really was not even clear what it meant when we started last year, but I think there’s so many possibilities and I think that it’s something everybody really could use.

Instructor 1 relayed that he had integrated an assignment using Google Sites into another course and credited his experience in FS with providing ‘freedom and maybe a little courage to try something different.’ Similarly, Instructor 5 indicated that he was also using OER-enabled pedagogy in another class. This individual stated, ‘I feel like students, they just get it. They appreciate the curriculum, they appreciate what they’re learning, and they are willing to share it as a result.’

Concern with the technical aspects of sharing student work was mentioned as a possible barrier to transfer. In the FS class, professional development staff collected artefacts and placed these within Pressbooks for publication. When asked about assigning work based on OER-enabled pedagogy, Instructor 6 explained her challenge,

Putting it out there to be available for other students to use. I don’t have a lot of experience with that so I mean I probably wouldn’t have assigned them anything that I was intending on putting out somewhere for other students to see.

Instructor 3 likened the collaboration between professional development and instructors to a hamburger where the instructors helped students create the ‘beef’ but professional development was the ‘bun’ or the start and end of the project which made it ‘open’. To use OER-enabled pedagogy, this instructor saw the need to learn how to technologically share and maintain student work.

Discussion

The need for professional development in mitigating resistance to change

Instructor interviews provide insight for those considering OER-enabled pedagogy themselves or as part of programme-level curriculum design. This research suggests that instructors new to OER-enabled pedagogy need professional development before class begins, and support throughout the term in specific elements of this approach. Additionally, even with support, instructors may not recognise the value of OER-enabled pedagogy the first time it is facilitated.

We found faculty willingness to adopt OER-enabled pedagogy broadly to be connected to their perceived comfort with the approach, both philosophically and technologically. Lack of knowledge of OER-enabled pedagogy is one dynamic that decreases comfort. A recent research report conducted in the United States indicates that it will be 2025 before even half of faculty are aware of OER and licencing (Spilovoy et al., 2020). It is logical to expect similar lack of awareness of OER-enabled pedagogy and how it is comparable to other pedagogical approaches, as was evidenced in this study where prior to fall 2019 none of the instructors indicated knowledge of open pedagogy. Awareness, in fact, has been credited as the main barrier in the move towards openness generally (Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016). At UPIKE the barrier to volitional implementation was negated through a required curricular element, but whether the use of OER-enabled pedagogy is optional or obligatory, training is critical in raising faculty awareness as neither acceptance nor resistance to change is possible in the absence of basic understanding.

To minimise resistance to OER-enabled pedagogy, instructors must understand the value of open practices. Doing so impacts the benefit versus cost calculation individuals are known to engage in when faced with change (Tagg, 2012) as well as counteracting ideologically-based resistance (Yılmaz & Kılıçoğlu, 2013). Moreover, instructors must be able to relay to students the value their work can have on themselves and others, as doing so fosters the types of motivation shown to enhance persistence and both academic and psychosocial wellbeing (Burton et al., 2006; Howard et al., 2020). At the University of Pikeville, comfort with OER-enabled pedagogy arose through multiple teaching opportunities. During their first facilitation, faculty felt they were learning along with students and focused heavily on the act of teaching. Their confidence grew during their second term using OER-enabled pedagogy and led to an increase in the perceived value of the approach.

This study suggests that professional development is needed for instructors on how to effectively mentor students. Active pedagogies, including open practices, require a shift in how faculty view themselves from providers of information to involved learning guides (Cronin, 2017; DeRosa & Robison, 2017; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016). The adage, ‘Guide on the side not sage on the stage,’ is common when speaking about active learning, however this does not capture the role of the instructor in OER-enabled pedagogy. One cannot be ‘on the side’ but must be a learner with students. A more apt statement would be, ‘Guide by their side.’

This form of mentorship requires recognition of the value of a democratic learning environment which disrupts the power dynamics of a traditional classroom. Burgh (2014) argues that a democratic pedagogical structure increases student self-regulation, and more adroitly connects what occurs in their lived experiences with the social and political structures with which they interconnect. Faculty experience may increase what Hegarty (2015) termed ‘connected community’, or deliberate connection between students (and faculty) and the broader global community that results from creating and contributing to a project licenced openly. Instructors in this study, although experienced within the classroom, nonetheless had responses indicating difficulty mentoring students the first time they utilised OER-enabled pedagogy. This may have arisen due to lack of comfort or a preoccupation with facilitating it correctly. Training in OER-enabled pedagogy and effective student mentorship, however, may have improved early faculty impression of this approach. Whether this constitutes true mentorship or simply effective teaching, as discussed by McKinsey (2016), may be debated but its necessity is undeniable.

Finally, faculty must be supported in technical aspects of facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy. Previous research indicates that lack of technical expertise is a barrier to open practices, such as use of OER and sharing materials publicly (Cox & Trotter, 2017; Cronin, 2017; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016; Padhi, 2018). As evidenced in this study, some instructors may see the value of open education but do not understand how to ethically, legally, and technologically share student work.

In this study, the technical concern most frequently mentioned was how to collate student artefacts and place these on a platform for larger audiences. This barrier was ameliorated by professional development staff performing these functions for instructors, similar to the approach employed by Tillinghast (2020) they found to be critical to project success. Individuals who wish to use OER-enabled pedagogy would benefit by contacting institutional support representatives and inquiring what options exist for sharing student work and if training is provided on these resources. This aligns with research by Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) and Cronin (2017) who indicate that institutional support is vital in helping educators fully implement open educational practices.

Impact of experience in OER-enabled pedagogy on change dynamics

One of the most compelling findings in this study relates to the difference in faculty experience when facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy multiple times. While their first instance with this approach felt like learning with the students, interviewees suggest that the second opportunity for facilitation is where they begin to see a value to students and the overall classroom dynamic.

Limited research exists on faculty views of the value of OER-enabled pedagogy separate from other open practices. Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) note that faculty may be reluctant to engage in open educational practices due to anxiety in sharing work with peers, and scrutiny that may ensue. Previous studies have also shown that instructors may question the pedagogical value of open approaches, but those who embrace openness see the benefit as outweighing the cost (Cronin, 2017). There is evidence that faculty may attribute some value to open pedagogy as an approach which fosters community-engaged learning (Paskevicius & Irvine, 2019). Tillinghast (2020) found that OER-enabled pedagogy has the potential to help students take greater responsibility for their learning and foster creativity.

The evolution of instructional practice evidenced in this study was primarily philosophic and value-driven. Faculty indicated after teaching OER-enabled pedagogy for the second time that this approach helped them foster student agency by allowing student voice, self-expression, and honouring the unique characteristic of each class. They were able to better motivate students by assisting them in finding their passion, allowing creative expression, connecting class activities to student values, and generating a greater level of excitement. Finally, faculty saw greater merit in peer learning, recognising the benefit in students sharing both their work and experience. Considering the need for instructors using active pedagogies to reimagine their role (Cronin, 2017; DeRosa & Robison, 2017; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016), this finding is encouraging even if the dynamic was most evident after the second iteration of OER-enabled pedagogy.

Interviews also pointed to practical changes made by faculty due to their experience with OER-enabled pedagogy. Two individuals specifically mentioned after the second interview that they foresaw using this approach in other aspects of their teaching as students would benefit from a growing body of knowledge generated by peers. Others indicated that due to the experience, they were changing their instructional practices to include more mentorship early in class and add weekly OER-enabled pedagogy experience to build classroom community.

Not surprisingly, it was also during this time that faculty indicated transfer of this teaching approach to other classes. Participants suggested that they saw OER-enabled pedagogy as being applicable to many assignments they were already using in a more traditional format. If resistance to change may be attributed to a fear of losing something valued or treasuring what individuals view as their own, as described by Tagg (2012), it appears that instructors in this study independently discovered how the benefits of OER-enabled pedagogy might be achieved without triggering one of these facilitators of resistance.

Limitations

A few limitations to this study should be noted. First, this research was conducted at one institution and with one form of OER-enabled pedagogy. Assignments as varied as writing test question banks to entire books may be considered OER-enabled pedagogy (Open Education Group, n.d.). This is both a strength and limitation in this study. While standardisation reduces variability in results that may be attributed to assignment structure, our findings may not represent faculty facilitating other forms of OER-enabled pedagogy. Longitudinal research is warranted to explore faculty experience in various forms of this approach.

Second, although everyone who taught in both 2019 and 2020 was interviewed, the total number of instructors was small. While these individuals relayed strikingly similar experiences, the study will continue in future years to confirm results as more instructors teach this course for the second time.

Third, the emergence of COVID-19 in spring 2020 meant that fall 2020 instruction occurred during the pandemic while fall 2019 did not. Instructors were asked about the ways in which changes made because of COVID-19 impacted their class. Those interviewed believed that while everyone had reduced cognitive bandwidth due to the pandemic, COVID did not impact their responses related to the research questions.

Conclusion

In considering how to best facilitate open pedagogy, Hegarty (2015) provides an 8-point framework useful in contextualising instructor vulnerability and willingness to learn alongside students. Hegarty references ‘people, openness, and trust’ and ‘learner-generated content’ as two elements of the framework. These require centring the student in the learning environment which may be uncomfortable to a didactic educator. Hegarty (2015) posits, ‘How we can encourage mainstream educators to enter this fast-moving stream is a secret yet to be unlocked’ (p. 7). The research reported here suggests that multiple opportunities for facilitating OER-enabled pedagogy, even if required, may increase instructor likelihood of adopting open practices more broadly.

Regardless of their preparation, instructors new to OER-enabled pedagogy should not be surprised if they feel uncomfortable and as though they are learning along with students. The participants we interviewed all experienced this dynamic but felt more confident the second time teaching. This does not mean that students will have a poor experience in the first class, as even during the first iteration at the University of Pikeville students recounted feeling motivated by the approach (Werth & Williams, 2021b). As evidenced in this study, what the instructor learns themselves and sees from their students may provide a catalyst to use this approach in other classes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Hannah Freeman for her assistance in reviewing and improving manuscript drafts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eric Werth

Dr. Eric Werth is the Professional Development Manager at the University of Pikeville. In this position, he works with faculty on improving student learning through the use of technology, online instruction, and open practices. Eric’s research interests relate to the use of Open Pedagogy in higher education. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0724-1598. Katherine Williams, MS, MLIS, is the Professional Development Educator at the University of Pikeville. In this position, she works with faculty on improving student learning through the use of technology, online instruction, and open practices. Katherine’s research interests include post-colonial and open pedagogies and disrupting neoliberalism in the academy. [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9385-2813