Critical Analysis: Looking at OER in a Blended Learning Environment

Thanuja Sandanayake (2019) says to maximize the benefits of blended learning and offset the costs and constraints of the traditional textbook system, Open Educational Resources (OER) should be considered as a solution.

By Ashley Breton Posted on: August 2021 Updated on: July 2022

---

Image taken from Wix.com

Traditional face-to-face (F2F) learning was the primary form of instruction until the last century. With the advent of the Internet, blended learning environments involving a combination of F2F and online course sessions have been intensively used in higher education to enhance teaching and learning around the globe (Sandanayake, 2019).

In the research article "Promoting open educational resources-based blended learning," Thanuja Sandanayake (2019) provides insights on the use of different educational materials in an upper-level undergraduate blended course offered at the University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka. To maximize the benefits of blended learning and offset the costs and constraints of the traditional textbook system, Open Educational Resources (OER) was advocated by the author as a solution.

The term OER is defined by UNESCO as “learning, teaching and research materials in any format and medium that reside in the public domain or are under copyright that have been released under an open license, that permit no-cost access, re-use, re-purpose, adaptation and redistribution by others.” (UNESCO, n.d., para 1).

The following intends to examine and critique the basis which underpins the promotion of an OER-based blended model in higher education presented by the author. And while this study produced some interesting findings on the use of OER in a blended undergraduate learning environment, further limitations were found related to the sample, generalizability, and replicability of the study's results.

Lack of contrasting perspectives

The author surveyed thirty-two articles and research reports in her preparation. A major idiosyncrasy of the article, however, is that more than half of its material is from a secondary source, several of which appear to be guides or handbooks (i.e., Bonk et al., 2013; Butcher, 2015; Glenda et al., 2017; Mills, 2011; Nolen, 2007; Sagor, 2010; Stringer, 2008). This can be a problem, as secondary sources have a higher chance of bias compared to primary sources (Prada-Ramallal et al., 2018). Although the sources may have been helpful for the author to carry out her research, the selected information presented to the reader in the literature review has nothing to say about the tensions that exist between the OER-integrated learning ideal and the reality for developing countries (e.g., the main obstacle to education is not lack of open and free content, but lack of access to programs leading to credentials, inadequately trained teachers, and poor OER design).

Without contrasting views or knowledge claims from different authors on the issue of promoting OER-based blended courses in this particular context, it assumes an omniscient voice without acknowledging biases and limitations. Regrettably, a summary of research findings without a critical evaluation produces a laundry list of facts and assumptions about OER-based learning that does not persuade the reader that her current study is a necessary next step.

Unclear research question

Sandanayake (2019) used a five-stage action research model (see Appendix A) as a conceptual guide and framework of reference for her study. As with any other research, action research should begin with a diagnosis of a specific problem. The author states the main aim of her study was to examine how undergraduate learners respond to an OER-based blended learning approach and promote its adoption in other university courses. Although it is clear the author aims to implement a new teaching and learning strategy, without a well-defined research question or hypothesis, the reader needs to work harder to decipher the parameters of what will be discussed.

Weak statistical comparison

The methodology adopted in this primary research study was a mixed approach — employing quantitative and qualitative data within a single investigation — on a sample of 106 undergraduate students from the Faculty of Information and Technology enrolled in the OER-integrated course. The author did not present demographic information of participants (e.g., age and gender).

Qualitative data was collected from a questionnaire-based evaluation at two different points within the 14 calendar weeks of the study to examine learners' insights towards OER-based learning. These questionnaires show that compared to the traditional F2F approach, students found the OER-based blended learning method more flexible and preferred it over F2F in many instances.

Quantitative data was collected from a learner performance evaluation, which consisted of two graded assessments: 1) course assignments and 2) self-graded quizzes. A comparison was made between the average assessment marks from the OER-based course and a traditional F2F course (without the use of OER) from the previous year. A statistical analysis using SPSS was conducted on the difference between the two groups. However, there was no discussion on the commonality of assessments.

The findings conclude that learners' attitudes towards OER-based blended learning were positive in terms of the domain process, course content, and ease of use (see Appendix B) and that OER improved end-of-course grades (see Appendix C). However, this study appears to have some major confounds, such as: method of instruction (e.g., comparing OER materials were taught online versus traditional texts used in F2F classes), course content (e.g., it is unknown if the same content was taught to both groups), and student assessment (e.g., it is unclear if both groups were given comparable assessments). For the findings of this study to be sufficient for the reader to consider the shift to OER-based learning, the author would need to use comparable measures.

Further limitations

While this study produced some interesting findings showing that the use of OER in a blended undergraduate learning environment impacted learner attitude and performance, there are limitations related to the sample, generalizability, replicability of results.

First, the sample size is small, as only 106 students from one course were invited to participate. Given such a small sample size, it is challenging to generalize these findings to the larger undergraduate student population, which, although the author acknowledges, remains the main aim of this research study.

Second, all participants in this study were from the Faculty of Information and Technology at a Sri Lankan university. Therefore, this also limits the generalizability of these findings to a student population outside this context.

Last, while Sandanayake (2019) stated the study should be replicated with a more extensive set of learners, the author did not discuss how this factor presented limitations. In general, the small sample size and unknown demographic information among participants limit the generalizability of these findings. The researcher's intent to use her action research study results to promote OER-based learning in other undergraduate courses presents another oddity of this article. Action research is meant to address a localized problem or situation, not transfer generalizations over persons, situations, or contexts.

Furthermore, as this study was only performed once within 14 weeks, without replication, the study does not convince the reader that the results are reliable, and the decision to adopt OER-based blending learning is valid.

In the end, the reader is left with many questions. Is this study replicable in other universities? Was content comparable? Were the assessments the same? The article did not say.

Summary

Sandanayake (2019) discusses an important topic, as teachers and researchers in Sri Lanka are actively involved in efforts to improve the quality of learning in educational institutions of all levels (Karunanayaka & Weerakoon, 2020). The approach of an OER-based blended program could be useful for students, as it would offer them free and easily accessible information, regardless of whether they are on campus or not. However, it might be challenging to replicate in other samples without key information about the course and the participants used in this study to expand research on OER-based blended courses in post-secondary institutions. Furthermore, this article is missing a clear statement of the problem that requires action, the tensions or knowledge gaps surrounding it, and why these tensions or gaps matter.

Future research whose findings have been reproduced and replicated by the researcher, with an accompanying description of the course among a larger sample, will help provide more concrete evidence of the impact of OER-integrated blended undergraduate courses. Therefore, if this article aims to convince the reader that OER-based blended learning should be promoted in higher education, its efficacy should be revisited.

References

Karunanayaka, S. & Weerakoon, W. (2020). Fostering digital education among teachers and learners in Sri Lankan schools. Journal of Learning and Development, 7(1), 61-77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1251641.pdf

Prada-Ramallal, G., Roque, F., Herdeiro, M. T., Takkouche, B., & Figueiras, A. (2018). Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0561-3

Sandanayake, T. (2019). Promoting open educational resources-based blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0133-6

UNESCO (n.d.). Open Educational Resources. UNESCO. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information/open-solutions/open-educational-resources

Appendix

Appendix A

Table 1.

Phases of action research

Note: This chart was taken from Sandanayake, T. (2019). Promoting open educational resources-based blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0133-6, p. 5.

Appendix B

Figure 4.

Student questionnaire on the OER-based blended learning process, course content, and ease of use

Note. This questionnaire was taken from Sandanayake, T. (2019). Promoting open educational resources-based blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0133-6, p. 8. This questionnaire illustrates the learners' observations and attitudes towards the OER-based blended learning process, course content, and ease of use. The 5-point Likert scale was used to elicit levels of agreeability or disagreeability from respondents. The average mean values of each category were analyzed.

Appendix C

Figure 5.

Average assignment marks with and without use of OER

Note. This graph was taken from Sandanayake, T. (2019). Promoting open educational resources-based blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0133-6 , p. 13. This graph illustrates a comparison between the average assessment marks from the OER-intervention course and a traditional F2F course (without the use of OER) from the previous year. A statistical analysis using SPSS was conducted on the difference.