Building Open Educational Resources from the Ground Up: South Africa's Free High School Science Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relatively new field of open educational resources (OER) is just now receiving more widespread attention and study. As such, there have been few opportunities thus far to share knowledge across program, organizational and national boundaries. This article presents a case study of the development of the South African project Free High School Science Texts (FHSST). Based on observations of project activities, a survey and interviews with project participants, and analyses of project documents and web-based content, the study sheds light on the challenges and successes of creating OER content within a process built from the ground up. On the whole, the case study revealed that project sustainability is an iterative, evolutionary process that works best when able to adapt to a continuously changing environment and shifting community needs. Ultimately this involves instilling practices within the organization or project that imitate the very characteristics of the resources that OER projects serve to create and support. Editors: Stephen Godwin (Open University, UK). Reviewers: Stephen Godwin (Open University, UK) and Agnes Kukulska-Hulme (Open University, UK).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".