Scope, Objectives, Content

The paper definitely falls within the scope of the journal, being focused on (1) faculty attitudes regarding (2) OER at a (3) special-focus institution which appears to be at an institution of higher learning. All of these elements fall within the scope of the journal, being focused meaningfully on OER within a higher education context. It focuses on curriculum materials and expresses concerns regarding pedagogical applications of such materials at the study institution, meaning a focus on open education and pedagogy. 

The topic is an important one, as the authors more than adequately make clear arguments for specific gaps in the literature around institution size and type and discipline coverage that their study seeks to address. 

Organization

The paper does proceed logically. It adheres to a recommended structure and section guideline. It makes judicious use of headings and subheadings to facilitate organization. Additionally, its arrangement of figures and tables is likewise positioned logically and helpfully. 

Approach and Conclusions

The discussion and conclusion can be said to be accurate, based on the findings as reported. In other words, the conclusions at which the authors arrived proceed logically from the data they gathered. They employ sound reasoning based on the results of their survey. One would wish for more critical analysis in the Discussion section, expounding more on their conclusions, but what is presented is sensible and logical. Furthermore, it is clear that the authors know/have investigated previous work on the subject of this paper. 

Writing Style, References

Overall, the writing does not feature any problems with expression or flow. It is written in a very accessible, professional fashion. It is appropriately concise. It is NOT overly formal; I appreciate the use of we/us in the writing to make it friendly and engaging. The way in which the authors do this does not take away from the professionalism of the paper. In fact, I feel that their use of the first-person plural allows the reader to engage more with the content. 

The APA formatting is appropriate though there are incidents of inappropriate practice, such as not following author names with date of publication as appropriate. An example of this can be found under the Creative Education subtitle of the Literature Review. The sentence as it appears is thus: Oh and her colleagues characterize students in these settings as having greater autonomy and a related sense of ownership over their work, leading to higher levels of engagement and motivation (2018). This sentence should appear like this: Oh and her colleagues (2018) characterize students....

Another formatting issue includes placement of periods BEFORE in-text citations rather than AFTER (excluding block quotations). There aren't TOO many examples of these formatting issues; they don't materially affect the quality of the article, but they do need addressing. 

Application

I believe the paper contributes to knowledge that can inform/improve others' practice/education. In the introduction, the authors clearly identify the deficits in the literature that they were seeking to close with the findings of their study. They situate their findings in national contexts as well, comparing and connecting their findings to national ones. It is important, in this reviewer's opinion, to situate phenomena in both macro- and micro-contexts. While the unique findings of this paper may not serve other institutions, especially given the special-focus status of the institution, those findings can potentially inform the practice of other such insitutions. While this is functionally a case study representing what the OER culture of this insitution looks like, it can help sharpen the details of the OER phenomena in different institution types and applications. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The writing style, the unique features of the institution and therefore the findings of the survey, and the clear presentation of the findings and analysis of those findings are strong points for this paper. Sometimes data visualizations can get in the way of the data authors are trying to communicate. The authors of this paper did a great job with their visualizations, and the ways in which they presented the data in the narrative made the data so much more meaningful and accessible. 

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

The main weak point of this article is how brief the discussion is. I would like to see more discussion and delving into the findings and what they mean for the institution and what the authors see them as meaning for the greater context of OER work. 

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
Highly sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

Yes. Private institutions, creative institutions, and postsecondary institutions are all the trailing end of OER adoption, and their awareness of the subject is an important contrast to examine. Their awareness and implementation of OER can signify many academic trends, such as OER evolving into an open standard or cultural norm transcending colleges. 

Organization

Yes. 

Approach and Conclusions

I agreed for the most part with the paper's data and interpretations of the data. Contextualizing this against national data provided important context.  

Writing Style, References

Looks good. 

Application

Yes. Private institutions are a huge part of the educational landscape, ESPECIALLY for creative fields, and therefore their knowledge, adoption, and implementation of OER is a valuable contrast to track against the larger educational landscape. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The specific institutional focus highlighted several cultural factors of their particular institution and how it differs from other colleges. The data highlighted many underlying barriers to OER entry that public institutions don't face, such as greater adjunctification, software-heavy curricula, and cultural/financial norms that come with privatized education. 

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

• A follow-up study that gathers Likert scale data year over year would provide useful context of OER's adoption growth at a college only just coming to the OER table. Now that we have a baseline for this unique college use case, will OER adoption increase, decrease, or stagnate? 


• Many of the classes examined included natural OER overlap with broader open culture, such as works that have entered the public domain due to age. Classes like art history and art appreciation can have some or all of their curriculum literature based on works from 100 years ago in a way where software-centric classes can't. Some background on public domain would be useful. Additionally, although software-centric classes might not embrace OER textbooks or open source software, these classes do often cover and require using permissively licensed materials in, for instance, a Photoshop class. There are perhaps aspects of OER that faculty are using while not even considering it OER. 


• The authors briefly touched on Critical Making and Critical Design, and connected these to pedagogies addressing social justice and antiracist pedagogies. OER as a value system transcendant beyond cost savings is, for many OER advocates, in the same category of important social tools to empower students. The institution's centering of these topics as ethical guiding lights infers the varying respondents would have differing levels of knowledge, support, and implementation of them, and I would wonder how OER as a value system is ranked contextually among other value systems faculty are implementing.  


• OER is like Calico Cut Pants. You gotta give. Beyond using OER materials in class, I would be curious how contributions to OER differ in a private institution versus a public institution.  

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
Highly sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×