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

Catherine CroninCELT, NUI Galway@catherinecroninslideshare.net/cicroninSociety for Research into Higher EducationDigital University Network18-Nov-2016 #SRHEImage: CC0 1.0 cogdog

Education is inherently an ethical and political act.

Michael Apple

summary of 1st phaseof my PhD research study:

exploring the use of open educational practices (OEP)

in higher education

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & Questions

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

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

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & 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?

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

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & 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)

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 reusefor use, adaptation &

redistribution by others

• 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

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

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)

Ind

ivid

ual

Insti

tutio

nal

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)

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & Questions

Research approachConstructivist grounded theory: inductive, comparative, emergent & open-ended (Strauss & Corbin, 1990); also 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

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & Questions

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 teaching)

Main digital identity is openUsing 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)Some use of digital natives discourse (but not the term itself)

Valuing privacy & openness; balanceAccepting porosity across boundariesDeveloping digital literacies; self & stud.

increasing openness

• 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

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

“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

• Context• Research Questions• Key Literature• Methodology• Findings & Analysis • Preliminary

Conclusions & Questions

“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)

• 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

Thank you!Catherine Cronin@catherinecronin

about.me/catherinecronin

slideshare.net/cicronin

Image: CC BY 2.0 visualpanic

all presentation references :

http://tinyurl.com/hdgjksa

blog post summary of presentation:

catherinecronin.wordpress.com

/2016/11/28/openness-and-praxis/

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)

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)