Scope, Objectives, Content

The article is within the scope for the Journal and section guidelines. It presents a novel teaching practice for open pedagogy, OER use in teaching and student enagement with course materials.      

Organization

This article meets the recommended structure and section guidelines. The practice description, results, and conclusion are well organized, which enhances the article's overall readability.     

Approach and Conclusions

The authors provide a balanced description of the project, including its planning, implementation, and evaluation. They draw sound conclusions based on the project's outcomes and impacts, provide cited references where appropriate, and offer helpful insights for initiating similar student-centered open education projects.

The literature review is brief but reference works central to the project. Expanding it to include citations related to peer-to-peer tutoring or course learning assistants would strengthen the article overall.

      

Writing Style, References

There are no identifiable problems with style, format, or cited references. The writing is approachble for an academic audience with familiarity with OERs and experienced OER practitioners.     

 

Application

The article offers an innovative, student-centered teaching approach that effectively integrates open educational practices with student-engagement and OER use. Instructors can use it as a blueprint for their own projects especially when OERs are already in the course and the next level of student use of OERs is warranted. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The authors provide a clear description of the project, including its scope and teaching enhancements involving student participants such as Undergraduate Learning Assistants and Student Co-authors. They are also transparent about the project's challenges and limitations.

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

One weakness of the article is the faculty reflection in the Student Co-Authorship of Course Materials section. The reflection introduces compelling ideas but lacks depth, leaving the reader wanting more. Additionally, including reflections from the undergraduate learning assistants or tutors from the Public Communications Center would have offered valuable insight into their unique experiences in the course.

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
sound

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

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

The paper’s focus is relevant to open pedagogy and OER development in the context of higher education. It addresses issues such as affordability (through significant cost savings for students), equity (by ensuring day-one access to materials for underserved and commuter populations), and pedagogical innovation (by modeling sustainable and scalable curriculum design approaches that can be adapted across disciplines). Additionally, the project demonstrates providing student collaborators with meaningful, real-world experience. It represents a strategic and impactful contribution that aligns with institutional goals, national trends in higher education, and global movements toward open access and inclusive learning.

Organization

The paper follows a clear and coherent narrative arc, beginning with the identification of key challenges—namely, inconsistent instruction and textbook costs—followed by contextual background on institutional demographics and course structure. It then outlines initial interventions, such as the lecture-lab model, and transitions into a grant-funded OER redesign that incorporated student collaboration. The narrative continues with student engagement through Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs), Public Communication Center (PCC) mentors, and student co-authorship, leading into a discussion of outcomes including cost savings, improved learning, and professional development. Pedagogical, logistical, and structural challenges are addressed with thoughtful solutions, and the paper concludes with a reflective discussion grounded in theory and practical insights. The sections include context, implementation details, evidence of impact, and synthesis, aligning well with academic publishing standards. The consistent reinforcement of the concepts of open pedagogy and collaborative course design throughout is particularly effective. To enhance readability, I recommend more consistent use of subheadings—such as “Initial Challenges,” “Lecture-Lab Model,” and “ULA Integration”—to guide readers and emphasize key phases. Additionally, including more specific data (e.g., survey response rates, rubric comparisons) would strengthen the paper’s claims. The section on Challenges and Solutions provides a good reflection on the various challenges faced and how you resolved them, but a little more on the limitations or transferability to other contexts would further strengthen the article. I found it interesting that there were no technological challenges, which is unusual in OER projects. There is usually a learning curve with software.

Approach and Conclusions

The paper’s conclusions are supported by both data and narrative evidence, with the authors carefully distinguishing between anecdotal observations and quantitative findings. They draw on survey data, faculty reflections, and student feedback to substantiate claims related to improved learning outcomes, engagement, and cost savings, while also acknowledging the project’s evolving nature and timeline limitations—demonstrating reflective and responsible scholarship. Narrative evidence is stronger than the "data" evidence. The conclusions remain appropriately framed within the scope of the project, with no signs of overreach. The paper is factually accurate, with consistent data (e.g., cost savings aligned with enrollment figures) and a representation of open pedagogy principles and institutional challenges. The section featuring Olivia’s reflection should more clearly indicate that she is a student collaborator. The authors may want to include additional methodological details such as survey response rates, rubric comparisons, and qualitative feedback from students and instructors. It mentions findings from focus groups, but no details on what those findings were.The project is well-situated within its institutional context, with a strong articulation of how it aligns with goals like cost reduction and access, and how it addresses challenges related to adjunct-heavy staffing. A brief mention of how the project reflects broader trends in higher education—such as equity, open pedagogy, and digital transformation—would further strengthen its relevance. The implementation process is described in rich detail, showcasing thoughtful planning and responsiveness to both faculty and student needs, but more about the timeline of this project may be useful for others looking to do a similar project. Recruiting students to create model speeches and annotate textbooks adds depth and representation, though it would be helpful to clarify how these students were selected (e.g., ULAs, peer mentors, application or nomination process) and how the quality of their contributions was ensured (e.g., faculty review, rubrics, feedback loops, etc.). The pivot from a lecture-lab model to a grant-supported OER redesign demonstrates adaptability, and the prioritization of instructor resources reflects a strong understanding of adjunct faculty needs. Further elaboration on how the ULA/mentor students were trained or supported, and a brief summary of feedback from Appendices A and B, would help substantiate the project’s reported successes.

The paper demonstrates a strong grasp of both foundational and current literature in open education and student-faculty collaboration, indicating the authors are well-versed in the relevant scholarly discourse. The literature review is concise yet comprehensive, effectively grounding the project in theoretical frameworks related to open pedagogy and student partnership. However, the review could benefit from a clearer synthesis of how specific cited works directly inform the project’s design choices. While the paper is well-referenced, the literature base could be further strengthened by incorporating additional sources, such as those addressing student-as-partner frameworks and participatory curriculum design. Here are a few sources that you may want to include in the literature review:

Seminal: Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). “Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model”. Teaching and Learning Inquiry 4(2),8-20. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.3. (You may want to check out this framework for students as partners to deepen the theoretical grounding)

NEW: Kelly, A.E., Schell, A.C., & Avila, B.N. (2025). Students as co-authors: Achievement emotions, beliefs about writing, and OER publishing decisions. Open Praxis, 17(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/ 10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.745

Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2023). Learning to be open: Instructor growth through open pedagogy. Open Learning, 38(4), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1970520 OR Werth, E., & Williams, K. (2021). Exploring student perceptions as co-authors of course material. Open Praxis, 13(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.13.1.1187

Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 19(4), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

In conclusion, the paper is factually accurate, methodologically sound, and grounded in relevant literature. It largely avoids unsupported claims and makes a meaningful contribution to the discourse on open pedagogy and student-faculty collaboration. The suggestions provided are minor and easily addressed, and they do not detract from the paper’s overall strength or validity

Writing Style, References

The paper’s writing is generally strong, with a professional, reflective, and accessible tone that balances scholarly rigor with narrative engagement. Transitions between major phases—such as the shift from the lecture-lab model to the OER redesign—are smooth and logically sequenced. The inclusion of student voice through Olivia’s reflection adds authenticity, and the faculty reflection offers a valuable counterpoint. However, both would benefit from clearer attribution. Some sections, especially “Project Components and Implementation,” are dense and could be improved with shorter paragraphs, clearer transitions between subtopics, or the addition of more subheadings to guide the reader. The narrative occasionally shifts between first-person plural and third-person institutional voice; adopting a more consistent tone would enhance cohesion. Finally, while the “Discussion” section is rich in insight, it could be more tightly focused by consolidating repeated points for greater clarity and impact. There is some repetiton of detail in sections that could be tightened (e.g., pages 4 and 5 re: what was done prior to the OER development).

Application

The paper contributes to both the knowledge base and practical application of open pedagogy, student-faculty collaboration, and providing instructional consistency in decentralized programs. It effectively bridges theory and practice by grounding concepts like student agency and co-creation in a real-world, discipline-specific context. Building on foundational work by Wiley, Wynants, and Casey et al., the paper could be further enriched by incorporating frameworks such as Healey et al.’s “students as partners” (2016).  It models open pedagogy in action, demonstrating how open practices can be embedded in course design, student mentorship, and institutional structures. Practically, it offers a replicable model for remixing OER—featuring chapter reorganization, local examples, and student annotations—and presents a compelling case of student-faculty co-authorship, supported by clear workflows and reflective practices. The development of LMS-integrated resources for adjunct faculty addresses a common institutional challenge, while student pipelines and modular OER design support long-term sustainability. The broader impact is notable: the project promotes equity through textbook cost elimination and day-one access, supports faculty development, and scales through a campus-wide presentation module. It addresses two pressing issues in higher education—adjunct-driven instructional inconsistency and textbook affordability—while showcasing student co-creation as a timely, innovative solution. The use of grant funding to drive systemic change is a strong institutional model, and the co-authored student textbook is a great example of authentic engagement. The project’s evolution from standardization to co-creation is compelling and well-documented, offering a replicable model for institutions and a persuasive case for the pedagogical value of student collaboration, with a commendable emphasis on sustainability and capacity-building.

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article has several qualities that make it a valuable contribution to the field. It has a clear and coherent structure, moving from problem identification to implementation, to outcomes, and finally to reflection. Each section is well-developed. It has a strong theoretical and practical integration, bridging theory and practice by grounding open pedagogy concepts—like student agency and co-creation—in a real-world, discipline-specific context. The project is not just described but critically examined. It also demonstrates authentic student engagement. The project not only included student voices in the OER products themselves, but also through co-authorship of this article. It’s a powerful example of open pedagogy in action, moving beyond tokenism to demonstrate genuine student-faculty partnership. I really liked the inclusion of a sample student annotation and “Olivia’s Take” in the appendices; they clearly showed how student voices were included. It doesn’t just talk the talk; it walks the walk. The article also addresses the real-world institutional challenges of adjunct-driven instructional inconsistency and textbook affordability, and it provides a replicable and scalable model that other departments or institutions could adopt. The article also demonstrates a commitment to sustainability and capacity-building by integrating student pipelines (e.g., ULAs, PCC mentors) and modular OER design to support long-term sustainability of the outputs. The project is embedded within existing institutional structures, so it appears that it will reduce future reliance on external funding to maintain it. Throughout the article, the authors demonstrate reflective and responsible scholarship by acknowledging limitations, adapting to challenges, and demonstrating reflective practice throughout. 

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

Feedback on suggestions to improve the paper were addressed above But, in the interest of answering the question, here are some points to consider (compiling from above): 

• Inconsistent Narrative Voice
  
  
  
  • Issue: The paper occasionally shifts between first-person plural (“we”) and a more formal, third-person institutional tone. This inconsistency can disrupt the flow and make it harder for readers to follow the perspective.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Adopt a consistent narrative voice throughout. If the first-person plural is used to emphasize collaboration, maintain it uniformly and clearly attribute individual reflections (e.g., faculty vs. student).
  
  
  
  


• Dense Sections and Limited Use of Subheadings
  
  
  
  • Issue: Some sections like “Project Components and Implementation” are dense and could overwhelm readers.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Break the denser sections into shorter paragraphs and use more descriptive subheadings (e.g., “Lecture-Lab Model,” “ULA Integration,” “OER Remixing”) to improve readability and emphasize key phases.
  
  
  
  


• Limited Methodological Detail
  
  
  
  • Issue: While the paper references surveys and feedback, it lacks detail on methodology—such as sample sizes, response rates, or how data was analyzed.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Include a brief methods summary or table outlining data sources, collection methods, and response rates. This would enhance transparency and strengthen the credibility of the findings.
  
  
  
  


• Underdeveloped Discussion of Limitations and Transferability
  
  
  
  • Issue: The paper does not sufficiently address the limitations of the project or how its outcomes might vary in different institutional contexts.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Add a short reflection on potential constraints (e.g., reliance on grant funding, institutional culture, faculty workload) and discuss how the model could be adapted elsewhere.
  
  
  
  


• Literature Review Could Be More Integrated
  
  
  
  • Issue: While the literature review is relevant and well-cited, it could more clearly connect specific sources to the project’s design decisions.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Strengthen the synthesis by explicitly linking cited works to key choices in the project (e.g., how Casey et al. informed co-creation strategies). Consider adding frameworks like Healey et al.’s “students as partners” to deepen the theoretical grounding.
  
  
  
  


• Lack of Summary of Student and Faculty Feedback
  
  
  
  • Issue: The paper references feedback in appendices but does not summarize key findings in the main text.
  
  
  • Suggestion: Include a brief summary of the most significant feedback themes from students and faculty to support claims of success and improvement.
  
  
  
  

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Research Assessment
sound

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

×