Delegates will be able to…

• gain insights into key findings around the principles of effective collaborative open learning linked to a specific study

• discuss cross-boundary learning in the context of cross-institutional academic development and relevance for their own practice

• discuss the potential use of the collaborative open learning framework from this study for own practice

Research questions

• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning experienced by learners?

• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses most strongly influence learners' experience and how?

• RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key features of a proposed collaborative open learning framework for open cross-institutional academic development courses?

Initial survey, 19 Qs (n=25)

Final survey, 11 Qs (n=22)

Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22) (main data collection method)

Pool 1 Course

4 categories of description

Pool 3 Collaboration

3 categories of description

Pool 2 Boundary crossing

4 categories of description

Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2

Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)

Ph

eno

men

ogr

aphy

(Mar

ton

, 19

81

)Case study 1

FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)

Case study 2#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)

+Surveys findings

Two surveys, (collective case study data collection method)

Collective case study (Stake, 1995)

RQ1 and RQ2Disc.

Open-ness in

HE

Digital tech and frame-works

Learning with

others in groups

Academic development

Literature

Researcher’s positioning

Case study 2

https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/2615/creativity-for-learning-in-higher-education/

Creativity for Learning in HE by Chrissi Nerantzi for CELT, MMU is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Case study 1

https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/

Motivations:• Be learners and experience

learning in the open• Informal CPD• To enhance practice• Learn with others

Initial survey data about study participants ( n = 25)

Open learning as course organisation (C1.1)

Open learning as a facilitated ex. (C1.2)

Open learning as an activity-based ex. (C1.3)

Open learning as designed for collaboration (C1.4)

Cross-boundary learning through modes of partici-pation(C2.1)

Cross-boundary learning through time, places and space (C2.2)

Cross-boundary learning through diverse pro-fessional contexts (C2.4)

Cross-boundary learning through culture and language (C2.3)

Stru

ctu

ral f

acto

rs (

Are

a A

)Li

ved

exp

erie

nce

(A

rea

B)

contributing factors

Collaboration as engagement in learning (C3.1)Selective

Immersive

Collaboration as relationship building (C3.3)

Group focus

Collaboration as shared product creation (C3.2)

Process-focusHigh product expectations

Individual focus Process-focusLow product expectations

Outcome space

Cross-boundary learning through modes of participation

… as a valued mixed mode learning experience… as a valued informal learning experience… as a valued opportunity for recognition

Cross-boundary learning through time and place

… as a continuum… as an interruption

Cross-boundary learning through culture and language

… as inclusion… as exclusion

Cross-boundary learning through mixed professional contexts

… as fertiliser… as discomfort

PO

OL

3: C

ross

-Bo

un

dar

ies

Want better quality teaching?

Competition

Collaboration

Nerantzi, C. (accepted) Alternative approaches to the TEF: raising the quality of teaching through openness, collaboration and innovation, in: Compass, Greenwich: University of Greenwich

ReferencesAkkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A., 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. June 2011, 81 (2). pp. 132–169.

Algers, A., 2016. OEP as boundary practices – how academy and society can inform each other. ExplOER project webinar. Accessed from https://connect.sunet.se/p4gxj96aglg/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Coughlan, T. & Perryman, L., 2012. Reaching out with OER: the new role of public-facing open scholar. eLearning Papers, 31. Accessed from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35934/1/In-depth_31_1.pdf

Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: Voices from Below, EdD thesis, University of Lincoln, available at http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf

Hall, R. & Smyth, K., (2016). Dismantling the curriculum in higher education. Open library of humanities, 2 (1), p.e11. Accessed from http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.66

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño-Muñoz, J., 2016. Opening up Education: A support framework for higher education institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN: doi: 10.2791/293408. Assessed from http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-education-institutions

Marton, F., 1986. Phenomenography – A research approach to investigating different understandngs of reality. Journal of thought, 21 (3), Fall 1986, Periodicals Archive Online. pp.28-49.

Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10, pp. 177-200.

Pegler, C., 2013. The influence of open resources on design practice. In: Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., eds., 2013. In: Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing for 21st century learning. London: Routledge, pp.145-158.

Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, G., Casper, L. & Miller, H., 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation, educause review, Why IT matters to HE. Updated 04/11/2013. Accessed from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-innovation

Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.