Open Access
Issue
ITM Web Conf.
Volume 39, 2021
CIFEM'2020 – 3ème édition du Colloque International sur la Formation et l’Enseignement des Mathématiques et des sciences
Article Number 03010
Number of page(s) 20
Section TIC au service de l'éducation et de la formation
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20213903010
Published online 11 May 2021
  1. UNESCO. (2012). Déclaration de Paris. Congres national sur les ressources educatives libres (REL) 2012 Unesco, Paris, 20-22 juin 2012. Recupere de: www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/French_Pa ris_OER_Declaration.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Unesco (2002). Forum sur l’impact des didacticiels libres pour l’enseignement superieur dans les pays en developpement: rapport final. Recupere de: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0012/001285/128515f.pdf [Google Scholar]
  3. Willey (2014). Future of OER. (2014). Iterating toward openness. Recupere de: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3619 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belikov, O., & Bodily, R. (2016). Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open Praxis, 8(3), 235–246. Recupere de: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.308 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dhanarajan, G. & Porter, D. (Eds.) (2013). Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jhangiani, R., Pitt, R., Hendricks, C., Key, J., & Lalonde, C. (2016). Exploring Faculty Use of Open Educational Resources at British Columbia Post-Secondary Institutions. BCcampus Research Report. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Recupere de: http://bccampus.ca/files/2016/01/BCFacultyU- seOfOER_final.pdf [Google Scholar]
  7. Clements, K., & Pawlowski, J. (2012). User-oriented quality for OER: understanding teachers’ views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00450. [Google Scholar]
  8. UNESCO (2019). Recommandation sur les ressources educatives libres (REL). Recupere de: http://portal.unesco.org/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=49556&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Google Scholar]
  9. Rolfe, V. (2012). Open Educational Resources: Staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology, 20: 14395. Recupere de: https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/6188 [Google Scholar]
  10. Reed, P. (2012). Awareness, attitudes and participation of teaching staff towards the open content movement in one university. Research in Learning Technology, 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.18520 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lesko, I. (2013). The use and production of OER & OCW in teaching in South African higher education institutions (Case study). Open Praxis, 5(2), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.5944/openprax-is.5.2.52 [Google Scholar]
  12. Mtebe, J. S., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Investigating perceived barriers to the use of open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1803 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2016). Institutional culture and OER policy: How structure, culture, and agency mediate OER policy potential in South African universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2523 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hatakka, M. (2009). Build it and they will come? Inhibiting factors for reuse of open content in developing countries. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 37(5), 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wolfenden, F., Buckler, A., & Keraro, F. (2012). OER adaptation and reuse across cultural contexts in Sub Saharan Africa: Lessons from TESSA (Teacher Education in Sub Saharan Africa). Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(1), p.Art. 3. http://doi.org/10.5334/2012-03 [Google Scholar]
  16. Samzugi, A. S., & Mwinyimbegu, C. M. (2013). Accessibility of Open Educational Resources for Distance Education Learners: The Case of The Open University of Tanzania. HURIA: Journal of The Open University of Tanzania, 14, 76–88. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baas, M, Admiraal, W & van den Berg, E. (2019). Teachers’ Adoption of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.510 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cox, G. & Trotter, H. (2017). Factors shaping lecturers’ adoption of OER at three South African universities. In C. Hodgkinson-Williams & P. B. Arinto (Eds.) Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South (pp. 287–347). Recupere de: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.601935 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pegler, C. (2012). Herzberg, hygiene and the motivation to reuse: towards a three-factor theory to explain motivation to share and use OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(1). http://doi.org/10.5334/2012-04 [Google Scholar]
  20. Willems, J. & Bossu, C. (2012). Equity considerations for open educational resources in the glocalization of education. Distance Education, 33(2), 185–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2 012.692051 [Google Scholar]
  21. Abeywardena, I. S., Dhanarajan, G., & Chan, C. S. (2012). Searching and Locating OER: Barriers to the Wider Adoption of OER for Teaching in Asia. In Proceedings from the Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: An Asian Perspective on Policy and Practices, 19–21 September 2012. Penang: IDRC. [Google Scholar]
  22. CERI/OECD (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation / Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of Open Educational Resources. Recupere de: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38654317.pdf [Google Scholar]
  23. Ngimwa, P. (2010). OER Readiness in Africa: A report submitted to the OLnet Project, August 2010. Barcelona: OLnet. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schuwer, R & Janssen, B. (2018). Adoption of Sharing and Reuse of Open Resources by Educators in Higher Education Institutions in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Research of Practices, Motives, and Con- ditions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3390 [Google Scholar]
  25. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Opening the Curriculum: Open Education Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2014. Report of the Babson Survey Research Group and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Recupere de: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthecur- riculum2014.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L. & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open Practices: Briefing Paper. Recupere de: https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/51668352/OpenPracticesBriefing [Google Scholar]
  27. Davis, H. C., Carr, L., Hey, J. M. N., Howard, Y., Millard, D., Morris, D., & White, S. (2010). Bootstrapping a culture of sharing to facilitate Open Educational Resources. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(10), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kursun, E., Cagiltay, K., & Can, G. (2014). An investigation of faculty perspectives on barriers, in- centives, and benefits of the OER movement in Turkey. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 13–32. Recupere de: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1914 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. McGill, L., Falconer, I., Dempster, J. A., Littlejohn, A. & Beetham, H. (2013). Journeys to Open Educational Practice: UKOER/SCORE Review Final Report. London: JISC. Open Praxis, vol. 9 issue 2, April–June 2017, pp. 151–171 [Google Scholar]
  30. Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2016). Institutional culture and OER policy: How structure, culture, and agency mediate OER policy potential in South African universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2523 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cox, G., & Trotter, H. (2017). An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers’ adoption of OER. Open Praxis, 9(2), 151–171. [Google Scholar]
  32. Farrow, R, Perryman, LA, de los Arcos, B, Weller, M & Pitt, R. (2016). OER Hub Researcher Pack, 16 December. Recupere de: https://oerhub.pressbooks.com [Google Scholar]
  33. Rapport de l’eCampus Ontario, 2018. Connaissance et utilisation des ressources éducatives libres (REL) en Ontario: É tude préliminaire des perspectives des enseignants au postsecondaire. Recupere de: https://www.ecampusontario.ca/wpcontent/ uploads/2018/10/eCampusOntario_September2018_ResearchReport_FR_V2.p df [Google Scholar]
  34. Delos Arcos, B., Cannell, P., & McIlwhan, R. (2016). Awareness of open educational resources (OER) and open educational practice (OEP) in Scottish higher education institutions. OEPS Interim Report. Recupere de: https://www.slideshare.net/OEPScotland/awareness-of-oer-and-oep- in-scottish-highereducation- institutions-survey-results [Google Scholar]
  35. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the textbook: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2015-16. Thornhill: Babson Survey Research Group. Recupere de: https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthetextbook2016.pdf [Google Scholar]
  36. Misra, P. (2014). Online training of teachers using OER: Promises and potential strategies. Open Praxis, 6(4), 375–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.4.155 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ramirez-Montoya, M-S., Mena, J., & Rodriguez-Arroyo, J. (2017). In-service Teachers’ self-perceptions of digital competence and OER use as determined by a xMOOC training course. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tur, G., Urbina, S., & Moreno, J. (2016). From OER to open ed perceptions of student teachers. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 7(2), 34–40. Recupere de: http://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/view/594. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.