Openness and praxis (#NextGenDL)

Openness and praxis:exploring the use of open educational practicesin higher education

Catherine CroninCELT, NUI [email protected]/cicroninDigital Learning Research Symposium Dublin 01-Nov-2016 #NextGenDL

Image: CC0 1.0 cogdog

short summary of1st phase of my PhD research study:

exploring the use of open educational practices (OEP)

in higher education

networkededucators

networkedstudents

Physical Spaces

Bounded Online Spaces

Open Online Spaces

Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Catherine Cronin, built on original Networked Teacher image CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Alec Couros

Higher education

Much is published about benefits of and barriers to openness, and 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

research questions

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?

Research questions

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)

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

Research approachConstructivist grounded theory: inductive, comparative, emergent & open-ended (Strauss & Corbin, 1990); acknowledging social context, subjectivity & interpretive understandings (Charmaz, 2014)

Research settingOne higher education institution in Ireland

Research methodSemi-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

• 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

Balancingprivacy and openness

Developingdigital literacies

4 dimensions shared by educators using OEP for teaching

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 for teaching

Balancing privacy & openness

Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks

will I share openly (e.g. blog, tweet)?

who will I share with ? (context collapse)

who will I share as ? (digital identity)

will I share this ?

MACRO

MESO

MICRO

NANO

“You’re negotiating all the time.”

• 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 roles as educators & researchers in an

increasingly networked society/participatory culture

Preliminary conclusions

Thank you!Catherine Cronin@catherinecronin

about.me/catherinecronin

slideshare.net/cicronin

Image: CC BY 2.0 visualpanic

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? [Blog post].

Czerniewicz, L. (2015). Confronting inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and exchange. Water Wheel 14(5), 26-28.

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.

Selwyn, N. & Facer, K. (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and connections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology 40(3), 1-23.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Veletsianos, G. (2015). A case study of scholars’ open and sharing practices. Open Praxis, 7(3), 199-209.

Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774.

Weller, M. (2014). The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press.

References & resources