Choosing Open (#GO_GN) - Openness and praxis: Using OEP in HE
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•658 views
Presentation for GO-GN doctoral seminar in Cape Town, South Africa, 6th March 2017
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Choosing Open (#GO_GN) - Openness and praxis: Using OEP in HE
Similar to Choosing Open (#GO_GN) - Openness and praxis: Using OEP in HE (20)
More from Catherine Cronin
More from Catherine Cronin (18)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Choosing Open (#GO_GN) - Openness and praxis: Using OEP in HE
- 1. pen Choosing Image: CC0 by Nadine Shaabana Catherine Cronin @catherinecronin NUI Galway #GO_GN Cape Town 6th March 2017
- 2. 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 “
- 3. networked educators networked students 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
- 4. Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices (OEP) in higher education study title
- 5. 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
- 6. OEP (Open Educational Practices) OER (Open Educational Resources) Free Open Admission (e.g. Open Universities) INTERPRETATIONS of ‘OPEN’ OER-focused definitions produce, use, reuse OER + Broader definitions… Licensed for reuse for use, adaptation & redistribution by others Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
- 7. • 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
- 8. 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 study Open Educational Practices (OEP)
- 9. 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) IndividualInstitutional Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
- 10. 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
- 11. Not using OEP for teaching Using OEP for teaching DIGITAL NETWORKING PRACTICES Main digital identity is university-based Not using social media (or personal use only) Combine university & open identities Using social media personal/prof (but not for teaching) Well-developed open digital identity Using social media for personal/professional (including teaching) DIGITAL TEACHING PRACTICES Using VLE only Using free resources, little knowledge of C or CC Using VLE + open tools Using & reusing OER PERSONAL VALUES Strong attachment to personal privacy Strict boundaries (P/P & S/T) Valuing privacy & openness; balance Accepting porosity across boundaries increasing openness
- 12. • 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
- 13. Balancing privacy and openness Developing digital literacies Valuing social learning Challenging traditional teaching role expectations inner circle (2 dimensions) Networked Individuals both circles (4 dimensions) Networked Educators 4 dimensions shared by educators using OEP
- 14. “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)
- 15. “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)
- 16. Balancing privacy & openness Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks
- 17. “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)
- 18. 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
- 19. Use of OEP is... Complex Personal Contextual Continuously negotiated
- 20. 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)
- 21. We must rebuild institutions that value humans’ minds and lives and integrity and safety. Audrey Watters (2017) “ Image: CC BY-NC 2.0 carnagenyc
- 22. #1. Separate consideration of Individual and Institutional openness HEIs 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 education Daily, 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
- 23. Balancing privacy and openness Developing digital literacies Valuing social learning Challenging traditional teaching 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
- 24. 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 “
- 25. Le spectre de la rose Jerome Robbins Dance Division, NYPL Thank You! @catherinecronin slideshare.net/cicronin
- 26. 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)
- 27. 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)
Editor's Notes
- Many thanks to Fabio for inviting me here and to all of you for joining. Please introduce yourself in the chat, if you wish, and say HELLO & where you are joining from. Thanks also to Martin Weller & Jim Groom, who I think our responsible for me doing this today… some chat after their EXCELLENT webinars a few months ago.
- QUOTE... It is 2017. It is fair to say that we live in perilous times - in higher education and more broadly. an imagination adequate to the possibilities and the risks of THIS MOMENT, wherever we may be (Rebecca Solnit) We need additional empirical & critical research! … “inequality-informed practice”
- One way to think about context of OPEN Learning Spaces in which we meet our students Alec Couros (10 years ago) + Networked Students I wanted to study what happens in OOS! But quickly realised that only students who had those opportunities were ones who were taught by open educators... * Typically, educators are not asked/required to teach in OOS. It is a *choice*... It is this choice that I wanted to explore... Why/why not? What encourages/repels? What happens in OOS? While both individual & systemic motivators are drivers of openness, I explore role of ind AGENCY re: how OEP are used in HE CONTEXT: Much literature re: benefits of openness, some re: barriers to openness. Few empirical studies, particularly in natural settings – i.e. university settings in which openness is not the agenda or the purpose of the research. More recently, researchers are theorising openness, using a critical approach to openness.
- Broad terrain of OEP… what is happening in practice “State of the Actual”? Important to learn from those who DO NOT use OEP! Anything shared by open educators that might help us to support them, support students, support learning? Student perspective (small!) re: open educators
- Broad terrain of OEP… what is happening in practice “State of the Actual”? Important to learn from those who DO NOT use OEP! Anything shared by open educators that might help us to support them, support students, support learning? Student perspective (small!) re: open educators
- OER: licensed for reuse: 5 Rs… (Reuse – Revise – Remix – Redistribute – Retain) Definition of OEP is more complex… not just the artifacts/content, but the “live practices” of open education 2 broad families of definitions of OEP: OER-focused or OER plus! open pedagogies; open learning; open scholarship; open tech respect & empower L’s as co-producers
- Open teaching – using PLNs to collaboratively explore, negotiate & develop authentic/sustainable K networks Open pedagogy – open practices to learn, engage with world NPS = use of participatory tech & online SNs to further scholarship Critical Dig pedagogy – collaborative, multi-voice, diverse, beyond institution All emergent scholarly practices that espouse a comb of open resources, open teaching, sharing & networked participation
- I have found this to be a useful map both for positioning my own research, and considering other work in the Open Education domain. WHERE DOES IT FIT? Terrain of my research = UPPER LEFT + MID/LOWER RIGHT Applicability of my research, hopefully = UPPER RIGHT
- My PhD Study: DOES NOT assume value of openness! NOT a study of the practices of OPEN educators! Some closed, some open / Some fixed & content, some moving / But ALL thinking deeply about their digital and pedagogical choices.
- No clear boundary between academic staff who DO and DO NOT use OEP. Continuum of practices and values, ranging from closed to open. Complex picture of broad range of educators… some open, some not... some moving towards openness, some not... all thinking deeply about their Dig + Ped decisions.
- Pedagogical & Practical concern! (across the Openness spectrum) RISKS = uncertain of ped value; S’s overuse of SM; overwhelming workloads; excessive noise in SM; context collapse BENEFITS = S’s feeling more connected; connect course to field; S’s share work openly w/ authentic audience; become part of future prof community ALL Open educators: “being open” i.e. visible to students, interacting & sharing beyond the VLE/email A FEW Open educators: Teaching openly, i.e. creating learning/assessment activities in OOS (Twitter, WP, public FB, etc.) 4 dimensions…
- Valuing social learning… Challenging trad role definition: Teachers as well as Ls; humility; commitment to democratic practices, e.g. openness not just as practice but Ethos, Way of being. Often goes hand-in-hand with Valuing Social Learning, but not always! Also structural reasons for challenging trad role expectations Sometimes easy to make assumptions about WHY people do/don’t use OEP… complex & personal.
- There are also… *** Structural reasons for challenging traditional role expectations. Each of the 4 non-trad P’s used OEP for teaching
- Participants spoke about Privacy & Openness – their interpretations of these and the relationship between them – more than any other aspect of using OEP. Academic staff make that determination based on personal values & experiences, their own digital literacies, context, awareness of current sociotech issues – but also CONTEXT (Structural & Cultural factors) P’s described making individual decisions appropriate to their own contexts, weighing up the Benefits & Risks for themselves and their students.
- MACRO – use a tool to share? (FB, Twitter, etc.) MESO – who to share with; who not to share with MICRO – digital identity, identity, voice NANO – will I post, tweet, RT, tag, like, follow, friend THIS?!?!? Helpful framework for understanding complex negotiations that P’s described when making decisions about Whether & How to use O+P tools, and Whether & How to use OEP.
- COMPLEX – always! PERSONAL – within institutions/system, identity = role-based | within networked publics = created & negotiated by US! CONTEXTUAL – your positionality (race, gender, class)… where you are located (discipline & institutionally… but also geographically) CONTINUOUSLY NEGOTIATED (i.e. the nano level) – context changes, we change… technology, social networks, norms, privacy policies, data ownership policies, our awareness of these, etc. We MUST pay attention to the actual experiences of individual Staff & Students (Neil Selwyn – “state of the actual”) .... not just the institution! HE: must recognise benefits, risks and complexities for individuals as well as institutions
- “When deployment of the open content infrastructure is complete, each and every faculty member will be in a position to engage in open pedagogy, OEP, and innovative / radical / critical approaches to teaching” (Wiley, 2015) Attention must be paid to the actual experiences & concerns of academic staff & students (“state-of-the-actual”): Lack of use/reuse of OER; Lower threshold for emergent forms of OEP; Awareness & motivation for OER driven by OEP According to Archer’s (2003) “morphogenetic cycle”, the interrelations between structure/culture/agency occur over time. The powers of structure & culture exist but are only activated when human agents seek to act. Human reflexivity is the mechanism that mediates between structure &agency, moving from confronting constraints to elaborating a course of action (Archer, 2003).
- KEY FINDING for me. I remain a supporter & advocate of OPEN EDUCATION on an institutional, cultural level – Open access to data, research, learning resources, etc. However! Openness at an individual level is an entirely different issue to address – and the tensions being experienced by many OE advocates or early adopters is due to conflation of broader goals of openness with individual openness. Critical approach to openness, particularly on an INDIVIDUAL level 2. To the extent that learning is OTHER in HE, we are not helping students or staff to integrate living & learning in OPEN CULTURE with teaching and learning in HE. We must learn to NAVIGATE THE MARVELLOUS… and provide supports for students and staff to do this.
- Lack of support/policy in the area of OPEN EDUCATION speaks very loudly. Staff & students are dealing with these tensions EVEN IF there are no open courses/MOOCs at your university!!