Presentation of my preliminary research findings at SRHE Digital University Network seminar "Critical Perspectives on 'Openness' in Higher Education" - SRHE, London, 18-Nov-2016

1. Openness and praxis:
Exploring the use of
open educational practices
in higher education
Catherine Cronin
CELT, NUI Galway
@catherinecronin
slideshare.net/cicronin
Society for Research into Higher Education
Digital University Network
18-Nov-2016 #SRHE
Image: CC0 1.0 cogdog

2. Education is inherently an
ethical and political act.
Michael Apple

3. summary of 1st phase
of my PhD research study:
exploring the use of
open educational practices (OEP)
in higher education

4. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

5. 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

6. Much is published about benefits of and barriers to
openness, as well as interpretations of openness
Relatively few studies use a critical approach to
openness; relatively few empirical studies
Theoretical context for this study: openness as a
sociocultural phenomenon
Openness and open education

7. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

8. 1. In what ways do academic staff use
open educational practices (OEP) for teaching?
2. Why do/don’t academic staff use
open educational practices (OEP) for teaching?
3. What practices, values and/or strategies are
shared by open educators, if any?
4. [Phase 2] How do open educators and students
enact and negotiate their digital identities in the
open online spaces where they interact?
Research questions

9. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

10. Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
…’open’ signals a broad, de-centralized constellation of
practices that skirt the institutional structures and roles by
which formal learning has been organized for generations.
– Bonnie Stewart (2015)

11. Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
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

12. • Open pedagogy
(DeRosa & Robison, 2015; Hegarty, 2015; Weller, 2014)
• Critical (digital) pedagogy
(Farrow, 2016; Rosen & Smale, 2015; Stommel, 2014)
• Open scholarship
(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012b; Weller, 2011)
• Networked participatory scholarship
(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012a)
OEP: related concepts

13. collaborative practices which 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.
References:
Beetham, et al. (2012)
Ehlers (2011)
Havemann, Atenas & Stroud (2014)
my scope:
open educational practices (OEP)
for teaching

14. Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk
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

15. An important question becomes not simply whether
education is more or less open, but what forms of
openness are worthwhile and for whom; openness
alone is not an educational virtue.
Edwards (2015)
“
Critical approach to openness
Additional references:
Bayne, Knox & Ross (2015)
Cottom (2015)
Czerniewicz (2015)
Gourlay (2015)
Selwyn & Facer (2013)
singh (2015)
Watters (2014)

16. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

17. Research approach
Constructivist grounded theory: inductive, comparative, emergent &
open-ended (Strauss & Corbin, 1990); also acknowledging social
context, subjectivity & interpretive understandings (Charmaz, 2014)
Research setting
One higher education institution in Ireland
Research method
Semi-structured interviews with 19 members of academic staff *
across multiple disciplines
Research methodology
* academic staff defined broadly as university staff whose responsibilities include teaching,
regardless of job title or terms of employment, e.g. full-time or part-time; permanent,
temporary or no contract

18. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

19. 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 teaching)
Main digital identity is
open
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)
Some use of digital
natives discourse (but not
the term itself)
Valuing privacy &
openness; balance
Accepting porosity across
boundaries
Developing digital
literacies; self & stud.
increasing openness

20. • Many academic staff perceive potential risks
(for themselves & their students) in using OEP for teaching;
some perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks
• A minority of participants (8 of 19) used OEP for teaching
• 2 levels of ‘using OEP for teaching’:
(i) being open, and (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

21. 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 for teaching

22. “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)

23. “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)

24. Balancing privacy & openness
Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks

25. “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)

26. 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

27. • Context
• Research Questions
• Key Literature
• Methodology
• Findings & Analysis
• Preliminary Conclusions
& Questions

28. “I should have my own web
presence, a comprehensive
presence. I just haven’t gotten
around to it – like 101 other things on
my list, you know?”
- participant (not using OEP)
“It’s not that I think people in the
quad are watching our every move or
anything like that. But occasionally
you do think, maybe I’ll be careful.”
- participant (not using OEP)

29. • Use of OEP by educators is complex, personal, contextual &
continuously negotiated
• Attention must be paid to the actual experiences & concerns
of academic staff & students (“state-of-the-actual”)
• HEIs require open education strategies & policies that
recognise the benefits, risks & complexities of openness
• HEIs should provide appropriate forms of support for
academic staff in 3 key areas:
 digital identities; digital literacies; digital capabilities
 navigating tensions between privacy & openness
 reflecting on our roles as educators & researchers in
increasingly networked, participatory culture
Preliminary conclusions

30. Thank you!
Catherine Cronin
@catherinecronin
about.me/catherinecronin
slideshare.net/cicronin
Image: CC BY 2.0 visualpanic

31. all presentation references :
http://tinyurl.com/hdgjksa
blog post summary of presentation:
catherinecronin.wordpress.com/2016/11/28
/openness-and-praxis/

32. Apple, M. (1990). Foreword. In O’Malley, Rosen & Vogt (Eds.) Politics of Education: Essays from
Radical Teacher. State University of New York Press.
Bayne, S., Knox, J. & Ross, J. (2015). Open education: the need for a critical approach. Learning,
Media and Technology, 40(3), 247-250.
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.
Cottom, T. M. (2015). Open and accessible to what and for whom? tressiemc blog.
Czerniewicz, L. (2015). Confronting inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and
exchange. Water Wheel 14(5), 26-28.
DeRosa, R. & Robison, S. (2015). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational
resources. EDUCAUSE Review.
Edwards, R. (2015). Knowledge infrastructures and the inscrutability of openness in education.
Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 251-264.
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.
Gourlay, L. (2015). Open education as a “heterotopia of desire.” Learning, Media and Technology,
40(3), 310-327.
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.
References (1 of 2)

33. Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources.
Educational Technology.
Rosen, J. R. & Smale, M. A. (2015). Open digital pedagogy = Critical pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Selwyn, N. & Facer, K. (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and
connections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
singh, s. (2015) The Fallacy of “Open”. savasavasava blog.
Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked
Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 1-23.
Stommel, J. (2014). Critical digital pedagogy: a definition. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques (2nd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship.
International Review of Online & Distributed Learning, 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). From “open” to justice. 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.
References (2 of 2)