scholarly journals Decolonizing the Textbook: Open Educational Resources in Spanish / Descolonizar el libro de texto: recursos educativos abiertos

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicki Gruzynski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
College Students ◽  
The United States ◽  
Open Educational Resources ◽  
Educational Resources ◽  
Recursos Educativos Abiertos ◽  
Estudiantes Universitarios

There is a movement in the United States to help college students with the enormous price of textbooks, a movement towards using more Open Educational Resources. It is a growing movement, but it is not a centralized. There are groups that are trying to help with this problem (for example, SPARC, OpenStax, Mason OER Metafinder), and these efforts help many students. However, the majority of these resources are in English. What can a Spanish professor do to help their students? In this presentation, we will discuss how librarians can help find and evaluate this type of material in Spanish. / Hay un movimiento en los Estados Unidos para ayudar a los estudiantes universitarios con el precio enorme de los libros de texto, un movimiento hacia utilizar más los recursos educativos abiertos en los cursos. Es un movimiento que está creciendo, pero no es un movimiento centralizado de ninguna manera. Hay grupos que tratan de ayudar con este problema (por ejemplo, SPARC, OpenStax, o el Mason OER Metafinder), y estos esfuerzos ayudan a muchos estudiantes. Sin embargo, la mayoría de esta material está en inglés. ¿Qué puede hacer un profesor de español para ayudar a sus propios estudiantes? En esta presentación, discutiremos cómo los bibliotecarios pueden ayudar a encontrar y evaluar este tipo de material en español.

scholarly journals It’s (Not) in The Reading: American Government Textbooks’ Limited Representation of Historically Marginalized Groups

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 734-740
Author(s):  
Shawna M. Brandle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Open Educational Resources ◽  
Educational Resources ◽  
American Government ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Content Analyses ◽  
Index Search

ABSTRACTThe Introduction to American Government course, and its textbook, is a nearly universal experience for students in American colleges and universities, but what exactly is being taught in this course? Do the textbooks used in this widely taught course accurately reflect the diversity of populations and experiences in the United States? More specifically, how do textbooks for Introduction to American Government cover historically marginalized groups, if at all? This article builds on previous work by analyzing the representation of individual historically marginalized groups to conduct index search and content analyses on traditionally published and openly licensed (i.e., open educational resources [OER]) textbooks. This study finds that American government textbooks include little coverage of any historically marginalized groups, and that OER textbooks are average in this respect, doing neither better nor worse than their traditionally published counterparts.

An Assessment of the Cues College Students Interpret From a Sexual Partner to Determine They Are Refusing

2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052199793
Author(s):  
Tiffany L. Marcantonio ◽  
Danny Valdez ◽  
Kristen N. Jozkowski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
College Students ◽  
Sexual Partner ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sexual Partners ◽  
Sexual Scripts ◽  
Nonverbal Cues ◽  
Sexual Experiences ◽  
Verbal Cues

The purpose of this study was to assess the cues college students use to determine a sexual partner is refusing vaginal-penile sex (i.e., refusal interpretations). As a secondary aim, we explored the influence of item wording ( not willing/non-consent vs refusal) on college students’ self-reported refusal interpretations. A sample of 175 college students from Canada and the United States completed an open-ended online survey where they were randomly assigned to one of two wording conditions ( not willing/non-consent vs refusal); students were then prompted to write about the cues they used to interpret their partner was refusing. An inductive coding procedure was used to analyze open-ended data. Themes included explicit and implicit verbal and nonverbal cues. The refusal condition elicited more explicit and implicit nonverbal cues than the not willing/non-consent condition. Frequency results suggested men reported interpreting more explicit and implicit verbal cues. Women reported interpreting more implicit nonverbal cues from their partner. Our findings reflect prior research and appear in line with traditional gender and sexual scripts. We recommend researchers consider using the word refusal when assessing the cues students interpret from their sexual partners as this wording choice may reflect college students’ sexual experiences more accurately.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document