CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Open Education and E-LearningOpen Source Software InnovationsPublishing and Scholarly Communication

"\"I Don't Gamble To Make My Livelihood\": Understanding the Incentives For

Open access
Fowler, Max, Smith IV, David H., Chen, Binglin, Zilles, Craig·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1
DOI 10.1145/3568813.3600136
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Prior work has primarily been concerned with identifying: (1) how Open Education Resources (OERs) can be used to increase the availability of educational materials, (2) what motivations are behind their adoption and usage in classrooms, and (3) what barriers impede said adoption. However, there is relatively little work investigating the motives and barriers to contribution in OER.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3568813.3600136

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 2022. ACM SIGCSE. https://sigcse.org/membership
  2. IS Abeywardena, G Dhanarajan, and Chee Seng Chan. 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.
  3. Maimoona H Al Abri, Brenda Bannan, and Nada Dabbagh. 2022. The design and development of an open educational resources intervention in a college course that manifests in open educational practices: a design-based research study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education (2022), 1-35.
  4. Gregory Allen, Alberto Guzman-Alvarez, Amy Smith, Alan Gamage, Marco Molinaro, and Delmar S Larsen. 2015. Evaluating the effectiveness of the open- access ChemWiki resource as a replacement for traditional general chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 16, 4 (2015), 939-948.
  5. Olga Maria Belikov and Robert Bodily. 2016. Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open praxis 8, 3 (2016), 235-246.
  6. TJ Bliss, John Hilton III, David Wiley, and Kim Thanos. 2013. The cost and quality of open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and students. (2013).
  7. Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accep- tance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319-340.
  8. Barbara J Ericson and Bradley N Miller. 2020. Runestone: A platform for free, on- line, and interactive ebooks. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1012-1018.
  9. Andrew P Feldstein DPS, Mirta Martin, Amy Hudson, Kiara Warren, John Hilton III, David Wiley, et al. 2012. Open textbooks and increased student access and outcomes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (2012).
  10. Dan Garcia, Armando Fox, Solomon Russell, Edwin Ambrosio, Neal Terrell, Mariana Silva, Matthew West, Craig Zilles, and Fuzail Shakir. 2023. A's for All (As Time and Interest Allow). In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1042-1048. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3545945.3569847 · DOI
  11. Scott D. Halpern, Rachel Kohn, Aaron Dornbrand-Lo, Thomas Metkus, David A. Asch, and Kevin G. Volpp. 2011. Lottery-based versus fixed incentives to increase clinicians' response to surveys: lottery-based versus fixed incentives. Health Services Research 46, 5 (Oct. 2011), 1663-1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 6773.2011.01264.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dalia Hanna, Abdolreza Abhari, and Alexander Ferworn. 2017. Comparing quantitative and comment-based ratings for recommending open educational resources. In Proceedings of the 20th Communications & Networking Symposium (CNS '17). Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA, USA, 1-10.
  13. John Hilton. 2016. Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational technology research and development 64 (2016), 573-590.
  14. John Hilton III, TJ Bliss, T Jared Robinson, and David A Wiley. 2013. An OER COUP: College teacher and student perceptions of open educational resources. (2013).
  15. John Hilton III and Carol Laman. 2012. One college's use of an open psychology textbook. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 27, 3 (2012), 265-272.
  16. Gary Hsieh and Rafał Kocielnik. 2016. You Get Who You Pay for: The Impact of Incentives on Participation Bias. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 823-835. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819936 · DOI
  17. Susan R. Jones, Vasti Torres, and Jan Arminio. 2013. Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues, second edition. 1 -235 pages. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123836 · DOI
  18. Brian L Lindshield and Koushik Adhikari. 2013. Online and campus college students like using an open educational resource instead of a traditional textbook. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9, 1 (2013), 26-38.
  19. Andrew Mao, Ece Kamar, Yiling Chen, Eric Horvitz, Megan Schwamb, Chris Lintott, and Arfon Smith. 2013. Volunteering versus work for pay: Incentives and tradeoffs in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 1. 94-102.
  20. Brad Miller and David Ranum. 2014. Runestone interactive: tools for creating in- teractive course materials. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. 213-214.
  21. Sanjaya Mishra. 2017. Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance education 38, 3 (2017), 369-380.
  22. Joel Samson Mtebe and Roope Raisamo. 2014. Challenges and instructors' in- tention to adopt and use open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. International review of research in open and distributed learning 15, 1 (2014), 249-271.
  23. Shaul Oreg and Oded Nov. 2008. Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 5 (2008), 2055-2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2007.09.007 Including the Special Issue: Internet Empowerment. · DOI
  24. Nayantara Padhi. 2018. Acceptance and usability of OER in India: An investigation using UTAUT model. Open Praxis 10, 1 (2018), 55-65.
  25. Nick Parlante, John K Estell, David Reed, David Levine, Dan Garcia, and Julie Zelenski. 2002. Nifty assignments. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 1 (2002), 319-320.
  26. Nancy Pawlyshyn, Dr Braddlee, L Casper, and H Miller. 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of crossinstitutional collaboration and innovation. Educause Review (2013).
  27. Tanya Percy and Jean-Paul Van Belle. 2012. Exploring the barriers and enablers to the use of open educational resources by university academics in Africa. In Open Source Systems: Long-Term Sustainability: 8th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2012, Hammamet, Tunisia, September 10-13, 2012. Proceedings 8. Springer, 112-128.
  28. Jeffrey A. Roberts, Il-Horn Hann, and Sandra A. Slaughter. 2006. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software devel- opers: a longitudinal study of the apache projects. Management Science 52, 7 (July 2006), 984-999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0554 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lassaad Smirani and Jihane Boulahia. 2022. Using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to investigate the adoption of open educational resources by faculty members. International Journal of Information Technology 14, 6 (2022), 3201-3211.
  30. David H Smith IV, Qiang Hao, Christopher D Hundhausen, Filip Jagodzinski, Josh Myers-Dean, and Kira Jaeger. 2021. Towards modeling student engagement with interactive computing textbooks: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 914-920.
  31. Hengtao Tang, Yu-Ju Lin, and Yingxiao Qian. 2020. Understanding K-12 teachers' intention to adopt open educational resources: A mixed methods inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology 51, 6 (2020), 2558-2572.
  32. Joseph Taylor and Ramakrishna Dantu. 2022. For Love or Money? Examining Reasons behind OSS Developers' Contributions. Information Systems Management 39, 2 (2022), 122 -137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1879323 · DOI
  33. Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
  34. Beth Tillinghast. 2020. Developing an Open Educational Resource and Exploring OER-Enabled Pedagogy in Higher Education. IAFOR Journal of Education 8, 2 (2020), 159-174.
  35. Beth Tillinghast. 2021. Using a technology acceptance model to analyze faculty adoption and application of open educational resources. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources 4, 1 (2021).
  36. Oksana Tokarchuk, Roberta Cuel, and Marco Zamarian. 2012. Analyzing Crowd Labor and Designing Incentives for Humans in the Loop. IEEE Internet Computing 16, 5 (2012), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.66 · DOI
  37. Aditya Vashistha, Edward Cutrell, and William Thies. 2015. Increasing the Reach of Snowball Sampling: The Impact of Fixed versus Lottery Incentives. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1359-1363. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2675133.2675148 · DOI
  38. Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly (2003), 425-478.
  39. Viswanath Venkatesh, James YL Thong, and Xin Xu. 2016. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the association for Information Systems 17, 5 (2016), 328-376.
  40. Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Craig Zilles. 2015. PrairieLearn: Mastery- based Online Problem Solving with Adaptive Scoring and Recommendations Driven by Machine Learning. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. ASEE Conferences, Seattle, Washington.
  41. Matthew West, Nathan Walters, Mariana Silva, Timothy Bretl, and Craig Zilles. 2021. Integrating diverse learning tools using the prairielearn platform. In Seventh SPLICE Workshop at SIGCSE.
  42. David Wiley, John Levi Hilton III, Shelley Ellington, and Tiffany Hall. 2012. A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of using open textbooks in middle and high school science classes. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13, 3 (2012), 262-276.
  43. Julie Willems and Carina Bossu. 2012. Equity considerations for open educational resources in the glocalization of education. Distance Education 33, 2 (2012), 185- 199.
  44. Yueqing Yin and Lei Fan. 2011. Trends of open educational resources in higher education. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Hybrid learning (ICHL'11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 146-156.
  45. Craig Zilles, David P Bunde, Jaime Spacco, Cynthia Lee, Leo Porter, and Cynthia Taylor. 2022. Spiffy Peer Instruction Questions. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2. 1226-1227.
  46. Craig Zilles, Matthew West, David Mussulman, and Timothy Bretl. 2018. Making testing less trying: Lessons learned from operating a Computer-Based Testing Facility. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference. San Jose, California.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fowler, M., Smith IV, D. H., Chen, B., & Zilles, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Illinois, USA
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-08-07
Pages
430-443
DOI
10.1145/3568813.3600136
OpenAlex
W4386585003
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Education and E-Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
open educational resources, contributor motivation, gamification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review