Assessment of open educational resources (OER) developed in interactive learning environments


When students are unable to purchase a textbook because of rising prices and/or are unwilling to carry heavy textbooks, their education is compromised. Open educational resources (OERs) are gaining in popularity because they solve these problems by providing free study materials in electronic formats, but students from different backgrounds and situations are impacted by OER in different ways. The aim of this paper is to analyze the usefulness of OER materials for students who are majoring in engineering, as well as those whose majors are in another (non-engineering) field. The impact of OER materials on students of different financial statuses, is also investigated. For this purpose, two classes of a graduate-level risk management course taught by the same instructor were selected. One class followed a web-based interactive OER system, and the other class followed the traditional textbook method. A survey was developed and distributed to measure 19 aspects of students’ perceptions towards the web-based interactive OER system, and multiple statistical methods were used to analyze the collected survey data. Students’ grades were also collected to analyze their academic performance. It was concluded that students majoring in engineering and students with financial constraints had a significantly more positive attitude towards the implementation of electronic OER materials. Furthermore, it was concluded that up-to-date OER materials with integrated advances in the field attract engineering students; whereas, free and/or low-cost educational resources are very appealing for students with higher education loans. The findings of this study will enable universities and colleges to effectively allocate financial resources towards the development and implementation of the OER materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.


  1. Abeywardena, I. S. (2017). An empirical framework for mainstreaming OER in an academic institution. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 12(2), 230–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Opening the curriculum: Open educational resources in US higher education, 2014. Babson Survey Research Group.

  3. Anshari, M., Alas, Y., Hardaker, G., Jaidin, J. H., Smith, M., & Ahad, A. D. (2016). Smartphone habit and behavior in Brunei: Personalization, gender, and generation gap. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 719–727.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Azma, F., Shima, K. M., Zahra, K., Maziar, R., Somayeh, R., & Mohammadi, H. R. (2016). Association between generation gap in interest, familiarity and application of information and communication technology. Social Sciences (Pakistan), 11(9), 1956–1961.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barak, M., & Ziv, S. (2013). Wandering: A web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects. Computers & Education, 62, 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beal, B. D., & Tarter, J. (2013). Flat world knowledge and the college textbook market: A revolution? Journal of Case Studies, 31(2), 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Behbahanian, M. A., Davis, E. L., & Roberts, N. A. (2018). Open educational resources in the undergraduate engineering curriculum: A materials science case study.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett, D., McCarty, C., & Carter, S. (2015). The impact of financial stress on academic performance in college economics courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bhardwaj, A. (2016). Importance of education in human life: A holistic approach. International Journal of Science and Consciousness, 2, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kou, X., Xu, S., & Sheu, F. R. (2015). Understanding the self-directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT OpenCourseWare subscribers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, M. S., Williams, L., & Pelosi, M. J. (2018). Dynamic hierarchical learning material for educational institutions. 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), pp. 137-142.

  12. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). The Economics Daily, College Tuition and Fees Increase 63 Percent since January 2006. <> (May 22, 2019).

  13. Butcher, N. (2015). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning (COL).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Callender, C., & Mason, G. (2017). Does student loan debt deter higher education participation? New evidence from England. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671(1), 20–48.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carvalho, C. V. D., Caeiro Rodríguez, M., Escudeiro, P., & Llamas Nistal, M. (2016). Sustainability of open educational resources: The eCity case.

  16. Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2017). Factors shaping lecturers’ adoption of OER at three south African universities. Adoption and impact of OER in the global south, in C. Hodgkinson-Williams & P. B. Arinto (Eds.), 287-347.

  17. Deimann, M., & Farrow, R. (2013). Rethinking OER and their use: Open education as Bildung. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 344–360.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dewey, B. I., Salem, J. A., Davidson, E., Aebli, F., Domico, K., & Falke, S. (2016). Open educational resources (OER) task force report. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 3(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dwyer, B. (2016). Teaching and learning in the global village: Connect, create, collaborate, and communicate. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 131–136.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Evans, G. (2017). Challenges surrounding the creation and adoption of OERs. Ohip IR Day. 2. Accessed 18 November 2019.

  23. Friedman, Z. (2018). Student loan debt statistics in 2018: A $1.5 trillion crisis. Forbes, June, 13.

  24. Goldy-Brown, S. (2019). “Student Loan Debt Statistics. (May 22, 2019).

  25. Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Bonk, C. J., & Li, Y. (2015). Chinese faculty members’ open educational resources (OER) usage status and the barriers to OER development and usage. International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning, 10(5).

  26. Hoosen, S., Moore, D., & Butcher, N. (2016). Open educational resources (OER) guide for students in post-secondary and higher education.

  27. Hu, E., Li, Y., Li, J., & Huang, W. H. (2015). Open educational resources (OER) usage and barriers: A study from Zhejiang University, China. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 957–974.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Huang-Saad, A., & Celis, S. (2017). How student characteristics shape engineering pathways to entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(2), 527–537.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Huitt, W. G., & Monetti, D. M. (2017). Openness and the transformation of education and schooling. Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science, 43–65.

  30. Hylén, J. (2006). Open educational resources: Opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of Open Education, 4963.

  31. Islim, O. F., Gurel Koybasi, N. A., & Cagiltay, K. (2016). Use of open educational resources: How, why and why not? International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 28(2), 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jaggars, S. S., Folk, A. L., & Mullins, D. (2018). Understanding students’ satisfaction with OERs as course materials. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 19(1), 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jiang, J. (2018). Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace digital life. Accessed 25 May 2019.

  34. Johnston, J., & Roten, I. (2015). Income-based repayment and loan forgiveness: Implications on student loan debt. Journal of Financial Planning, 28(4), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, B. J., & Jackson, K. L. (2012). Reducing textbook costs: an unconventional approach. Business Education Innovation Journal, 4(2), 66.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jung, I., & Hong, S. (2016). Faculty members’ instructional priorities for adopting OER. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6).

  37. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kasinathan, G., & Ranganathan, S. (2017). Teacher professional learning communities: A collaborative OER adoption approach in Karnataka. India. Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South, 499–548.

  39. Kermanshachi, S. (2018). Development of web-based interactive educational system replacing the traditional textbook based instructional approach. UTA CARES Open Educational Resources (OER) Report. Accessed 9 June 2019.

  40. Kermanshachi, S., & Safapour, E. (2017). Assessing students' higher education performance in minority and non-minority serving universities. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-6.

  41. Koch, J. V. (2006). An economic analysis of textbook pricing and textbook markets. ACSFA College Textbook Cost Study Plan Proposal. Report prepared for the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. Accessed 18 November 2019.

  42. Law, K. M., & Breznik, K. (2017). Impacts of innovativeness and attitude on entrepreneurial intention: Among engineering and non-engineering students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 683–700.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Montgomery, D. C., & Runger, G. C. (2003). Applied statistics and probability for engineers (3rd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Napitupulu, D., Rahim, R., Abdullah, D., Setiawan, M. I., Abdillah, L. A., Ahmar, A. S., & Pranolo, A. (2018). Analysis of student satisfaction toward quality of service facility. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 954(1), 012–019.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nikoi, S., & Armellini, A. (2012). The OER mix in higher education: Purpose, process, product, and policy. Distance Education, 33(2), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nipa, T., & Kermanshachi, S. (2018). Analysis and assessment of graduate students’ perception and academic performance using open educational resource (OER) course materials. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City.

  47. Okamoto, K. (2013). Making higher education more affordable, one course reading at a time: Academic libraries as key advocates for open access textbooks and educational resources. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267–283.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ost, B., Pan, W., & Webber, D. (2018). The impact of mass layoffs on the educational investments of working college students. Labour Economics, 51, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Perez, J. E. (2017). Images and the open educational resources (OER) movement. The Reference Librarian, 58(4), 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Psotka, J. (2012). Interactive learning environments. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 1604–1606.

  51. Qi, C., & Xu, Y. (2018). Design of Learning Resource Management Module in Personalized Intelligent Learning System. In 2018 5th international conference on education, management, arts, economics and social science (ICEMAESS 2018). Atlantis Press.

  52. Rasch, D., Kubinger, K. D., & Moder, K. (2011). The two-sample t test: Pre-testing its assumptions does not pay off. Statistical Papers, 52(1), 219–231.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Rickabaugh, J. (2015). Including the learner in personalized learning. Center on Innovations in Learning.

  54. Rodríguez, M. D. P. S., Pino, U. H., & Hernández, Y. M. (2018). Co-creation of OER by teachers and teacher educators in Colombia. OER in The Global South, 143.

  55. Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., & Taneja, P. (2019). A review of nontraditional teaching methods: Flipped classroom, Gamification, case study, self-learning, and social media. Education in Science, 9(4), 273.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Scott-Clayton, J. E. (2018). The looming student loan crisis is worse than we thought.

  57. Shmueli, E. (2017). MERLOT—A reliable framework for OER. 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Vol. 2, pp. 697–699.

  58. Silveira, I. F. (2016). OER & MOOC: The need for openness. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 13.

  59. Spilovoy, T. M., & Seaman, J. (2015). Opening public institutions: OER in North Dakota and the nation, 2015. Babson Survey Research Group.

  60. Stein, S., Hart, S., Keaney, P., & White, R. (2017). Student views on the cost of and access to textbooks: An investigation at University of Otago (new Zealand). Open Praxis, 9(4), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stockwell, B. R., Stockwell, M. S., Cennamo, M., & Jiang, E. (2015). Blended learning improves science education. Cell, 162(5), 933–936.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Taneja, M. P., Safapour, M. E., & Kermanshachi, S. (2018). Innovative higher education teaching and learning techniques: Implementation trends and assessment approaches. In proceedings of the ASEE annual conference and exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

  63. Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 21(1).

  64. Wan, M. (2017). Adopting open educational resources (OER): A journey.

  65. Wang, T., & Towey, D. (2017). Open educational resource (OER) adoption in higher education: Challenges and strategies. In 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 317–319.

  66. Weller, M., de los Arcos, B., Farrow, R., Pitt, R., & McAndrew, P. (2017). What can OER do for me? Evaluating the claims for OER. Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science, 67–77.

  67. Wiley, D., Caswell, T., Henson, S., & Jensen, M. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. All Faculty Publications, 206.

  68. Wright, R. E., & Reeves, J. L. (2019). Open educational resource (OER) adoption in higher education: Examining institutional perspectives. FDLA Journal, 4(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wu, Y. (2019). Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About OER. Accessed 18 November 2020.

  70. UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries: Final report. CI-2002/CONF.803/CLD.1.

  71. US Government Accountability Office. (2013). College textbooks: Students have greater access to textbook information. Publication No. GAO-13-368.

  72. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., Do, J., Skutnik, A. L., Thompson, D. J., Stephens, A. F., & Tays, C. A. (2015). Design lessons about participatory self-directed online learning in a graduate-level instructional technology course. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(2), 178–189.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Yoon, J. (2017). Developing a list and a rubric of interactive open education resources (OER) for science teacher candidates of diverse students. TEM Journal, 6(3), 512–524.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was supported by the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) CARES Grant Program, which is sponsored by UTA Libraries.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharareh Kermanshachi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nipa, T.J., Kermanshachi, S. Assessment of open educational resources (OER) developed in interactive learning environments. Educ Inf Technol 25, 2521–2547 (2020).

Download citation


  • Open educational resources (OER)
  • Assessment
  • Interactive learning environments
  • Engineering and management students
  • Textbook Price and college tuition
  • Web-based learning platform