Abstract

<p class="3">Using data collected from peer reviews for Open Textbook Library titles, this paper explores questions about rating the quality of open textbooks. The five research questions addressed the relationship between textbook and reviewer characteristics and ratings. Although reviewers gave textbooks high ratings generally, reviewers identified differences in quality according to criteria and discipline. Physics and chemistry textbooks earned significantly lower ratings than other textbook types. Ratings were not significantly associated with reviewers’ status and experience, but were associated with reviewers’ place of residence. We discuss the implications for OER efficacy studies and other research.</p>

Highlights

  • For several years, the cost of higher education has been increasing at an alarming rate

  • We examine data collected from peer reviews for Open Textbook Library titles to discuss questions about rating the quality of Open Educational Resource (OER)

  • Our first research question was, “What are the average ratings of each quality criterion and overall quality?” In answer to this question, we found that textbook quality was generally rated high for each criterion and for overall quality

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The cost of higher education has been increasing at an alarming rate. Part of that debt can be attributed to textbook costs. Some students are enrolling in fewer courses than they otherwise would, taking on more debt, or choosing not to buy required texts (Hilton, Gaudet, Clark, Robinson, and Wiley, 2013; Senack, 2014). One promising development helping to address burgeoning college costs is the growing availability of open textbooks. Most open textbooks are Rating the Quality of Open Textbooks: How Reviewer and Text Characteristics Predict Ratings Fischer, Ernst, and Mason available free online, often with a low-cost print version. Potential benefits of using open textbooks include significant cost savings to students and increased flexibility for instructors (Hilton et al, 2013; Senack, 2015)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.