choosing open (#go_gn) - openness and praxis: using oep in he
TRANSCRIPT
penChoosin
g
Image: CC0 by Nadine Shaabana
Catherine Cronin @catherinecronin NUI Galway#GO_GN Cape Town 6th March 2017
Open education is a tool for social change.
Santos, A.I., Punie, Y., & Muñoz, J.C. (2016)Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions
“
networkededucators
networkedstudents
Physical Spaces
Bounded Online Spaces
Open Online Spaces
Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Catherine Cronin, built on Networked Teacher image CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Alec Couros
Higher education
Openness and praxis:Exploring the use of
open educational practices (OEP)in higher education
study title
1. In what ways do academic staff use open educational practices (OEP)?
2. Why do/don’t academic staff use OEP?
3. What practices, values, and/or strategies are shared by open educators, if any?
4. How do open educators and students interact in open online spaces, and how do they enact and negotiate their digital identities?
Research questions
OEP (Open Educational
Practices)
OER (Open Educational
Resources)
Free
Open Admission (e.g. Open Universities)
INTERPRETATIONS of ‘OPEN’ OER-focused
definitionsproduce, use, reuse
OER+ Broader
definitions…
Licensed for reusefor use, adaptation &
redistribution by others
Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
• Open educational practices (OEP)(Beetham, et al., 2012; Ehlers, 2011; Hodgkinson-Williams, 2009)
• Open teaching(Couros, 2010; Couros & Hildebrandt, 2016)
• Open pedagogy (DeRosa & Robison, 2015; Hegarty, 2015; Weller, 2014)
• Open scholarship(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012b; Weller, 2011)
• Networked participatory scholarship (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012a; Stewart, 2015)
• Critical (digital) pedagogy(Farrow, 2016; Rosen & Smale, 2015; Stommel, 2014)
OEP and related concepts
collaborative practices that include the creation, use and reuse of OER and pedagogical practices employing participatory technologies and social networks for interaction, peer-learning, knowledge creation and sharing, and empowerment of learners.
definition for my studyOpen Educational Practices (OEP)
INTERPRETATIONS of ‘OPEN’
Policy/ Culture
Values
Practices
Activities
LEVELS of OPENNESS
OEP (Open Educational
Practices)
OER (Open Educational
Resources)
Free
Open Admission (e.g. Open Universities)
Ind
ivid
ual
Insti
tutio
nal
Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
Image: CC0 photo by Saksham Gangwar
Methodology Approach: qualitative / interpretive / critical Method: constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) Setting: one HEI in Ireland without open education policies/culture Participants: 19 members of academic staff, varied by discipline,
employment status, and approach to openness
Not using OEPfor teaching
Using OEPfor teaching
DIGITALNETWORKINGPRACTICES
Main digital identity is university-basedNot using social media (or personal use only)
Combine university & open identitiesUsing social media personal/prof (butnot for teaching)
Well-developed open digital identity Using social media for personal/professional (including teaching)
DIGITAL TEACHINGPRACTICES
Using VLE onlyUsing free resources, little knowledge of C or CC
Using VLE + open toolsUsing & reusing OER
PERSONAL VALUES
Strong attachment to personal privacyStrict boundaries (P/P & S/T)
Valuing privacy & openness; balanceAccepting porosity across boundaries
increasing openness
• Many academic staff perceive potential risks(for themselves & their students) in using OEP; some perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks
• A minority of participants (8 of 19) used OEP
• 2 levels of ‘using OEP’: (i) being open, (ii) teaching openly
• 4 dimensions shared by open educators: balancing privacy and openness developing digital literacies (self & students) valuing social learning challenging traditional teaching role expectations
Findings
Balancingprivacy and openness
Developingdigital literacies
Valuingsocial learning
Challenging traditionalteaching role expectations
inner circle(2 dimensions)Networked Individuals
both circles(4 dimensions)Networked Educators
4 dimensions shared by educators using OEP
“I don’t mind if students follow me
and if they find stuff that I’ve written
online. But I just don’t encourage it
as part of the teaching, or their
relationship
with me as their teacher.”
- participant (not using OEP)
“I don’t let students know I’m on Twitter, they seem to figure it out. It depends on what email account I reply to them with. Depending on the teaching or contractual situation in any given year, sometimes the [university] email account just evaporates and I have to fall back and use my own email account. My personal email signature has my Twitter name, my blog. The [university] account just has the department name.”
- participant (using OEP)
Balancing privacy & openness
Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks
“There are no hard and fast rules.”
- participant (using OEP)
“I have personal rules for that.” - participant (using OEP)
“You’re negotiating all the time.” - participant (using OEP)
Balancing privacy and openness
will I share openly?
who will I share with ? (context collapse)
who will I share as ? (digital identity)
will I share this ?
MACRO
MESO
MICRO
NANO
Use of OEP is... Complex Personal Contextual Continuously negotiated
using OER
using OEP
e.g. Wiley, 2015
actual, emergent practice in this study
Sociocultural theory: “educators can shape and/or be shaped by openness” – see Veletsianos (2010)
Social realist theory: interrelations of structure, culture & agency in shaping behaviour (Archer, 2003) – see Cox & Trotter (2016)
We must rebuild institutions that value humans’ minds and lives and integrity and safety.
Audrey Watters (2017)
“
Image: CC BY-NC 2.0 carnagenyc
#1. Separate consideration of Individual and Institutional opennessHEIs require open education strategies and policies that recognise the benefits, risks, and complexities of openness for individuals (students & staff) as well as the institution.
#2. Higher education is open educationDaily, academic staff & students negotiate how to teach and learn in an increasingly open, networked, and participatory culture, e.g. deciding whether/how to combine informal & formal learning practices, identities, and networks.
Conclusions
Balancingprivacy and openness
Developingdigital literacies
Valuingsocial learning
Challenging traditionalteaching role expectations
HE institutions should work broadly & collaboratively to build and support academic staff capacity in 3 key areas:
1. Digital literacies/capabilities
2. Navigating tensions between privacy & openness
3. Reflecting on our roles as educators & researchers in increasingly networked participatory culture
Le spectre de la rose Jerome Robbins Dance Division, NYPL
To hope is to give yourself to the future, and that commitment
to the future makes the present
inhabitable.
Rebecca Solnit (2004)Hope in the Dark
“
Le spectre de la rose Jerome Robbins Dance Division, NYPL
Thank You!@catherinecronin
slideshare.net/cicronin
Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L. & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open Practices: Briefing Paper. Jisc.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications.
Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Athabasca University Press.
Couros, A. & Hildebrandt, K. (2016). Designing for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos, Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning. Athabasca University Press.
Czerniewicz, L. (2015). Confronting inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and exchange. Water Wheel 14(5), 26-28.
DeRosa, R. & Robison, S. (2015, November 9). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review.
Ehlers, U-D. (2011). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 1–10.
Farrow, R. (2016). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology.
Geser, G. (2007). Open educational practices and resources: OLCOS Roadmap, 2012.
Havemann, L., Atenas, J. & Stroud, J. (2014). Breaking down barriers: Open educational practices as an emerging academic literacy. Academic Practice & Technology conference, University of Greenwich.
Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology. (July/August).
Rosen, J. R. & Smale, M. A. (2015). Open digital pedagogy = Critical pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
References (1 of 2)
Santos, A.I., Punie, Y., & Muñoz, J.C. (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions. JRC Science For Policy Report.
Selwyn, N. & Facer, K. (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and connections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solnit, R. (2004). Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. New York: Nation Books.
Stewart, B. (2015). In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship. IRRODL, 16(3).
Stommel, J. (2014, November 18). Critical digital pedagogy: a definition. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. IRRODL, 13(4), 166-189.
Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774.
Watters, A. (2014, November 16). From “open” to justice. Hack Education blog.
Watters, A. (2017, February 2). Ed-tech in a time of Trump. Hack Education blog.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Basingstoke: Bloomsbury Academic.
Weller, M. (2014). The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press.
Wiley, D. (2015). Reflections on open education and the path forward. Iterating toward openness blog.
References (2 of 2)