Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Student Perceptions of Open Pedagogy in Higher Education: A Factorial Survey Experiment on Presentation Format, Feedback Type, and Sharing Mode Cover

Student Perceptions of Open Pedagogy in Higher Education: A Factorial Survey Experiment on Presentation Format, Feedback Type, and Sharing Mode

By:   
Open Access
|Aug 2026

References

  1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Altinay, F. (2023). Open educational resources: Evaluation of students’ intention to use and motivation to create. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 17901813. 10.1111/bjet.13313
  2. Alves, T., Sousa, F., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2024). How Personality Traits Affect Peer Assessment in Distance Learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(1), 371396. 10.1007/s10758-023-09694-2
  3. Atenas, J., Ebner, M., Ehlers, U.-D., Nascimbeni, F., & Schön, S. (2024). An Introduction to Open Educational Resources and Their Implementation in Higher Education Worldwide. Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society, 4(4). 10.34669/WI.WJDS/4.4.3
  4. Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial Survey Experiments. SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781483398075
  5. Austin, P. C., & Merlo, J. (2017). Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis: Multilevel logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 36(20), 32573277. 10.1002/sim.7336
  6. Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing Open Educational Practices from a Social Justice Perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 10. 10.5334/jime.565
  7. Bellinger, F., & Mayrberger, K. (2019). Systematic Literature Review zu Open Educational Practices (OEP) in der Hochschule im europäischen Forschungskontext. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 34, 1946. 10.21240/mpaed/34/2019.02.18.X
  8. Berweger, B., Born, S., & Dietrich, J. (2022). Expectancy-value appraisals and achievement emotions in an online learning environment: Within- and between-person relationships. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101546. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101546
  9. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740756. 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<;740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
  10. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 110. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
  11. Brandenburger, B. (2022). A multidimensional and analytical perspective on Open Educational Practices in the 21st century. Frontiers in Education, 7, 990675. 10.3389/feduc.2022.990675
  12. Braßler, M. (2024). Students’ Digital Competence Development in the Production of Open Educational Resources in Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 16(4), 1674. 10.3390/su16041674
  13. Breetzke, J., & Bohndick, C. (2024). Expectancy-value interactions and dropout intentions in higher education: Can study values compensate for low expectancies? Motivation and Emotion, 48(5), 700713. 10.1007/s11031-024-10088-9
  14. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 13151325. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  15. Chen, D., & Hendricks, C. (2023). Open Pedagogy Benefits and Challenges: Student Perceptions of Writing Open Case Studies. Open Praxis, 15(1). 10.55982/openpraxis.15.1.518
  16. Chen, J. (2021). Research on the Effect of Peer Feedback Training in English Writing Teaching—A Case Study of Students in Business English Major. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 12. 10.5539/elt.v14n6p12
  17. Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 272285. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
  18. Christensen, R. (2023). ordinal-Regression Models for Ordinal Data_. R package version 2023.12-4.1. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal>.
  19. Clinton-Lisell, V. (2021). Open Pedagogy: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings. Journal of Learning for Development, 8(2), 255268. 10.56059/jl4d.v8i2.511
  20. Deimann, M. (2019). Open Education: Auf dem Weg zu einer offenen Hochschulbildung. transcript Verlag. 10.14361/9783839444962
  21. Díaz-Vicario, A., Duran-Bellonch, M. D. M., & Ion, G. (2025). Contribution of peer-feedback to the development of teamwork skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(2), 311325. 10.1177/14697874241238758
  22. Dülmer, H. (2022). Vignetten. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 11351146). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. 10.1007/978-3-658-37985-8_76
  23. Emery, K. L., Shephard, M. D., & Matthews, S. J. (2024). Using online peer feedback tools to improve undergraduate group interaction and assessment quality. 10th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’24). Tenth International Conference on Higher Education Advances. 10.4995/HEAd24.2024.17288
  24. Garin, O. (2023). Ceiling Effect. In F. Maggino (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 704706). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_296
  25. Geven, S., Wiborg, Ø. N., Fish, R. E., & Van De Werfhorst, H. G. (2021). How teachers form educational expectations for students: A comparative factorial survey experiment in three institutional contexts. Social Science Research, 100, 102599. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102599
  26. Gilpin, S., Rollag Yoon, S., & Clinton-Lisell, V. (2025). Exploring Open Pedagogy Principles: A Qualitative Study of Undergraduate Experiences. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 29(1), 132150.
  27. Goodall, G., Mjøen, O. M., Witsø, A. E., Horghagen, S., Hardonk, S., & Kvam, L. (2024). Attitudes towards students with disabilities achieving their educational and work-related goals: A factorial survey experiment among higher education institution employees in Norway. Higher Education, 88(2), 419465. 10.1007/s10734-023-01123-8
  28. Gülzau, F. (2025). Whom do we naturalise? A factorial survey on naturalisation preferences in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 124. 10.1080/1369183X.2025.2530634
  29. Gumede, M. (2025). Students’ experiences on how ubuntu-facilitated group oral presentations enhance their learning. African Identities, 118. 10.1080/14725843.2025.2488374
  30. Hartono, H., Mujiyanto, J., Fitriati, S. W., Sakhiyya, Z., Lotfie, M. M., & Maharani, M. M. (2023). English Presentation Self-efficacy Development of Indonesian ESP Students: The Effects of Individual versus Group Presentation Tasks. International Journal of Language Education, 7(3). 10.26858/ijole.v7i3.34442
  31. Haynes, W. (2013). Benjamini–Hochberg Method. In W. Dubitzky, O. Wolkenhauer, Cho K.-H., & H. Yokota (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Systems Biology (pp. 7878). Springer New York. 10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7_1215
  32. Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources. Educational Technology, 3, 313.
  33. Hohaus, P. (2024a). Hochschulautonomie im Zeitalter der Plattformisierung: Eine Diskussion am Beispiel von länderseitig finanzierten OER-Plattformen. Hochschulmanagement, 19(2), 4753.
  34. Hohaus, P. (2024b). Offene Bildungsmaterialien als Ziel der Steuerung – Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse der OER-Policies deutscher Hochschulen im Kontext von Educational Governance. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 14(2), 207231. 10.1007/s35834-024-00428-7
  35. Hohaus, P. (2024c). Offene Bildungsmaterialien aus der Perspektive der Organisationskultur und Organisationsentwicklung. Personal- und Organisationsentwicklung in Einrichtungen der Lehre und Forschung, 19(3+4), 112116.
  36. Hohaus, P. (2025a). Die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie als Zugang für die OER-Forschung – Theoretische und forschungsbasierte Perspektiven. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung. 10.1007/s35834-025-00494-5
  37. Hohaus, P. (2025b). Open Educational Practices (OEP). In P. Hohaus (Ed.), The Language of Digital Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts (p. 61). BRILL. 10.1163/9789004719118_061
  38. Hohaus, P. (2025c). Open Educational Resources (OER). In P. Hohaus (Ed.), The Language of Digital Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts (p. 62). BRILL. 10.1163/9789004719118_062
  39. Jeno, L. M. (2015). Encouraging Active Learning in Higher Education: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, Special Issue 2(1). 10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2015.0091
  40. Jeno, L. M., Danielsen, A. G., & Raaheim, A. (2018). A prospective investigation of students’ academic achievement and dropout in higher education: A Self-Determination Theory approach. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 11631184. 10.1080/01443410.2018.1502412
  41. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative Learning in 21st Century. [Aprendizaje cooperativo en el siglo XXI]. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 841851. 10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241
  42. Kim, J.-S. (2010). Within-Subjects Design. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781412961288.n503
  43. Kiselyov, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2024). Peer-reviewed presentation exchange in an undergraduate classroom. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 25(1), e00067e00123. 10.1128/jmbe.00067-23
  44. Lazzara, J., Bloom, M., & Clinton-Lisell, V. (2024). Renewable Assignments: Comparing Faculty and Student Perceptions. Open Praxis, 16(4), 514525. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.4.706
  45. Li, W., & Zhang, F. (2021). Tracing the Path Toward Self-Regulated Revision: An Interplay of Instructor Feedback, Peer Feedback, and Revision Goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 612088. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612088
  46. Lim, C. I., Warrie, P., Chin, B. L. F., & Wong, W. K. (2024). Enhance Learning of Presentation Skills Through Interactive Peer Observation, Feedback and Reflection. Proceedings of The International Academic Conference on Teaching, Learning and Education, 1(1), 3244. 10.33422/tleconf.v1i1.296
  47. Mayrberger, K. (2024). Open Educational Practices (OEP) im (Hochschul-)Bildungsbereich im Wandel – und ihr Beitrag zu Gerechtigkeit, Partizipation und einer Kultur des Teilens in der (Post-)Digitalität. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 62, 85103. 10.21240/mpaed/62/2024.07.05.X
  48. Mishra, S. (2025). A Review of Reviews on Open Educational Resources. Open Praxis, 17(2), 305325. 10.55982/openpraxis.17.2.851
  49. Müller, A. M., Röpke, R., Konert, J., & Bellhäuser, H. (2024). Investigating group formation: An experiment on the distribution of extraversion in educational settings. Acta Psychologica, 242, 104111. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104111
  50. Muszyński, M. (2023). Attention checks and how to use them: Review and practical recommendations. Ask: Research and Methods, 32(1), 338. 10.18061/ask.v32i1.0001
  51. Nasiri, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2024). Evaluating panel discussions in ESP classes: An exploration of international medical students’ and ESP instructors’ perspectives through qualitative research. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 925. 10.1186/s12909-024-05911-3
  52. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102122. 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
  53. Nishanthi, H. M., & Munasinghe, O. (2020). Impact of Personality Traits on Online Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Social Media among University Undergraduates. Kelaniya Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(2), 75. 10.4038/kjhrm.v15i2.79
  54. Núñez, J. L., & León, J. (2016). The Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation to Learn on the Relationship between Student’s Autonomy Support and Vitality and Deep Learning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E42. 10.1017/sjp.2016.43
  55. Petzold, K., & Wolbring, T. (2019). What Can We Learn From Factorial Surveys About Human Behavior?: A Validation Study Comparing Field and Survey Experiments on Discrimination. Methodology, 15(1), 1930. 10.1027/1614-2241/a000161
  56. Piepenburg, J. G., & Beckmann, J. (2022). The relevance of social and academic integration for students’ dropout decisions. Evidence from a factorial survey in Germany. European Journal of Higher Education, 12(3), 255276. 10.1080/21568235.2021.1930089
  57. Posit team. (2025). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.posit.com/.
  58. R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org/>.
  59. Rammstedt, B. (2007). The 10-Item Big Five Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 193201. 10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.193
  60. Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C., & Kovaleva, A. (2014). Big Five Inventory (BFI-10). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). 10.6102/ZIS76
  61. Ranjbar, M., Amirian, S. M. R., & Vaghayei, F. (2025). A qualitative analysis of the effect of group oral presentation and peer assessment on EFL learners’ self-efficacy. Current Psychology, 44(5), 37473759. 10.1007/s12144-025-07410-0
  62. Remsberg, A. J., & Hagar, M. C. (2019). Can student presentations be an effective form of active learning for the student audience? The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 9(2), 18.
  63. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 6878. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  64. Sauer, C., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2020). Designing Multi-Factorial Survey Experiments: Effects of Presentation Style (Text or Table), Answering Scales, and Vignette Order. Methods, Data, Analyses, 14(2), 195214. 10.12758/MDA.2020.06
  65. Shao, J., Cheng, L., Wang, Y., Li, K., & Li, Y. (2024). How peer feedback with regulation scripts contributes to the development of critical thinking in dialogues: Strengthening cognitive and affective feedback content. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 61216140. 10.1080/10494820.2023.2251040
  66. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement: Why Does Groupwork Work? [Aprendizaje cooperativo y rendimiento académico: ¿por qué funciona el trabajo en grupo?]. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785791. 10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201
  67. Sridharan, B., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2019). Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement? Higher Education, 77(5), 853870. 10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7
  68. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291303. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
  69. Swain, B. K., & Pathak, R. K. (2024). Benefits and challenges of using OER in higher education: A pragmatic review. Discover Education, 3(1), 81. 10.1007/s44217-024-00142-6
  70. Taylor, J. E., Rousselet, G. A., Scheepers, C., & Sereno, S. C. (2022). Rating norms should be calculated from cumulative link mixed effects models. Behavior Research Methods, 55(5), 21752196. 10.3758/s13428-022-01814-7
  71. Tietjen, P., & Asino, T. I. (2021). What Is Open Pedagogy? Identifying Commonalities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 185204. 10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5161
  72. Treischl, E., & Wolbring, T. (2022). The Past, Present and Future of Factorial Survey Experiments: A Review for the Social Sciences. Methods, Data, Analyses, 16, 30. 10.12758/MDA.2021.07
  73. Uttl, B. (2021). Lessons Learned from Research on Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education. In W. Rollett, H. Bijlsma, & S. Röhl (Eds.), Student Feedback on Teaching in Schools (pp. 237256). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-75150-0_15
  74. Uttl, B. (2024). Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET): Why the Emperor Has No Clothes and What We Should Do About It. Human Arenas, 7(2), 403437. 10.1007/s42087-023-00361-7
  75. Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505520. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.004
  76. Watling, S. (2012). Student as producer and open educational resources: Enhancing learning through digital scholarship. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 4(3), 17. 10.11120/elss.2012.04030013
  77. Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4_9
  78. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. 10.21105/joss.01686
  79. Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2014). tidyr: Tidy Messy Data (p. 1.3.1) [Data set]. 10.32614/CRAN.package.tidyr
  80. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 6881. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
  81. Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open Educational Resources: A Review of the Literature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 781789). Springer New York. 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_63
  82. Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L. (2018). Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). 10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
  83. Yang, Y., Wang, F., Wang, Z., & Zhou, R. (2025). The relationship between test anxiety and neuroticism: A network analysis approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 246, 113332. 10.1016/j.paid.2025.113332
  84. Zheng, C., Wang, L., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Self-assessment first or peer-assessment first: Effects of video-based formative practice on learners’ English public speaking anxiety and performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 806839. 10.1080/09588221.2021.1946562
Language: English
Page range: 558 - 575
Submitted on: Nov 6, 2025
Accepted on: Feb 6, 2026
Published on: Aug 4, 2026
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Pascal Hohaus, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.