Identifying Student Perceptions of Different Instantiations of Open Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the adoption of open educational resources (OER) continues to increase, instructors have started using these resources for more than simply delivering content. Open pedagogy is a term used to describe a range of instructional practices that often incorporate OER into the learning process. This study examined student perceptions of two approaches to open pedagogy—student creation of multiple-choice questions and student creation of the syllabus and corresponding course assignments. The sample included responses from 84 students at two colleges in the United States. Results showed that students who created the syllabus and assignments had a more positive experience and were more likely to enroll in a future course that implements this strategy. Those in the multiple-choice course felt that the approach was less conducive to learning than traditional learning activities. The significant differences in student feedback on two different approaches, both of which could be termed open pedagogy, indicate that more research is needed to examine the efficacy of the wide variety of approaches to open pedagogy. Moreover, the perceived efficacy of one instantiation of open pedagogy does not equal the effectiveness of open pedagogy, broadly defined.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".