Notes for my ALT-C presentation.

1. ALT-­‐C
2014:
NOTES
FOR
PRESENTATION
TITLE
SLIDE
The
initial
aim
of
the
project
was
to
enhance
our
understanding
of
the
ways
academics
at
the
University
of
Oxford
use
OER
in
their
everyday
teaching
practice.
But…
1.
The
research
literature
on
OER
pointed
to
the
need
to
raise
the
level
of
research
above
the
purely
practical
issues
of
licensing
and
technology.
2.
The
Research
Councils
UK’s
mandate
on
open
access
publishing
opened
up
an
additional
perspective
on
open
practices
in
science
which
we
thought
was
worth
exploring
as
well.
So
we
reoriented
our
work
to
explore
the
relationship
between
open
educational
practice
and
the
academic
culture
of
the
University.
But
although
the
project
has
an
institutional
origin
and
focus,
in
this
presentation
I
want
to
use
the
project’s
conceptual
framework
and
some
of
the
data
to
stimulate
some
broader
questions
and
reflection.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
1

2. WHY
SHOULD
OPENNESS
BE
THE
DEFAULT?
So,
why
should
openness
be
the
default?
<<CLICK>>
One
of
the
most
compelling
reasons
for
making
knowledge
accessible
to
all
is
in
Atkins
Brown
and
Hammonds’
2007
report
for
the
Hewlett
Foundation.
<<CLICK>>
But
the
idea
that
openness
should
be
the
default
approach
comes
from
an
undated
report
by
Van
der
Vaart
and
others.
I’ll
read
an
extended
quotation:
‘Open’
is
an
important
‘modus
operandi’
for
an
effective
and
efficient
research
and
higher
education
system.
It
is
seen
as
an
approach,
not
as
an
ideology
or
an
end
in
itself.
It
fits
this
sector
naturally
since
it
optimizes
the
possibilities
for
the
advancement
of
knowledge
that
is
so
necessary
to
tackle
the
increasing
complexity
and
scale
of
the
world’s
questions
for
Research.
The
big
challenges
require
cross-­‐disciplinary
approaches,
and
conditions
that
nourish
serendipity,
unforeseen
collaborations
and
re-­‐combinations
of
available
research
outputs
and
data
into
new
discoveries.
(First
quote
was
used
in
the
interviews
to
discuss
the
philosophical
underpinnings
of
openness;
reads
‘The
world’s
knowledge
is
a
public
good
and
all
people
should
have
free
access
to
it.’)
AREAS
OF
FOCUS
These
are
the
areas
of
our
research
which
I’m
going
to
focus
on
in
this
presentation.
We
conducted
14
semi-­‐structured
interviews
with
members
of
teaching
staff
at
the
University
in
summer
and
autumn
2013.
10
of
them
were
teaching
undergraduates.
We
also
spoke
to
a
learning
technologist,
a
staff
developer
and
a
librarian
for
their
perspectives.
The
interview
schedules
were
based
on
a
conceptual
framework
of
open
practices
which
we
had
constructed
from
an
extensive
literature
survey.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
2

3. SHARING
AND
REUSING
RESOURCES
Sharing
Discussions
with
interviewees
about
sharing
their
teaching
materials
as
OER
focused
on
the
question
of
motivation:
what
made
them
personally
willing
to
make
their
materials
openly
available.
We
found
that
the
data
reinforced
the
findings
of
Van
Acker
et
al.
(2013):
namely,
that
altruism
is
the
primary
motivation,
and
that
knowledge
self-­‐
efficacy
–
the
belief
that
one’s
materials
have
added
value
for
others
–
is
the
main
predictor.
Enhancing
one’s
professional
reputation
per
se
was
a
minor
consideration.
The
reputation
of
a
research-­‐active
teacher
lies
mainly
in
their
academic
publications.
Reusing
Reuse
is
often
coupled
with
sharing
as
a
marker
of
open
practice.
However,
the
interview
evidence
suggests
that
the
reuse
of
a
third-­‐party
resource
is
driven
primarily
by
questions
of
quality
and
suitability
to
the
immediate
pedagogic
need,
rather
than
by
the
legitimacy
that
an
open
licence
confers
on
its
use
or
the
potential
for
repurposing
and
redistributing
it
as
a
new
resource.
There
was
actually
a
basic
lack
of
clarity
regarding
what
actually
constitutes
an
open
educational
resource:
Interviewees
seemed
generally
aware
that
OER
are
freely
available,
but
only
one
person
mentioned
the
Creative
Commons
(or
similar)
licence
without
being
prompted
by
the
interviewer.
OPEN
PEDAGOGIC
MODELS
-­‐
1
Ulf
Ehlers
wrote
in
a
2011
paper:
“The
pure
usage
of
these
open
educational
resources
in
a
traditional
closed
and
top-­‐down,
instructive,
exam-­‐focused
learning
environment
is
not
open
educational
practice.”
He
added
that
open
educational
practices
entail
“social
interaction,
knowledge
creation,
peer-­‐learning,
and
shared
learning
practices.”
In
effect,
he
is
laying
down
a
gauntlet
to
the
current
educational
system
to
explore
the
transformational
potential
of
engaging
with
OER.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
3

4. OPEN
PEDAGOGIC
MODELS
–
2
So,
we
identified
4
key
characteristics
of
the
‘innovative’
pedagogical
models
that
are
claimed
by
some
to
be
a
logical
extension
of
creating
and
using
OER.
And
we
invited
the
10
interviewees
who
teach
undergraduates
to
comment
on
each
statement.
The
interviewees
concurred
with
most
of
these
statements
and
identified
them
as
broadly
characteristic
of
the
University’s
model
of
individual
and
very
small-­‐
group
teaching.
But
of
course,
they
had
comments
to
make.
For
example,
there
are
occasions
when
the
teacher
has
to
act
as
a
source
of
knowledge,
in
tutorials
as
well
as
in
lectures.
And
one
person
commented
that
students
need
to
be
guided
so
that
they
can
genuinely
take
responsibility
and
learn
to
select
what
is
worth
reading
rather
than
what
superficially
seems
more
attractive.1
In
relation
to
statement
2,
some
interviewees
preferred
to
think
in
terms
of
building
understanding
rather
than
knowledge.
They
also
felt
that
the
teacher
retains
the
advantage
of
deeper
knowledge
and
longer
experience.
Openness
may
have
given
a
greater
knowledge
base
to
the
student,
but
this
is
still
within
‘the
comfort
zone
of
the
senior
partner’.
Regarding
statement
3,
two
people
questioned
whether
it
is
possible
to
divide
up
learning
into
knowledge
and
skills.
Regarding
statement
4,
several
interviewees
questioned
the
adverb
‘primarily’,
which
they
felt
implies
that
more
than
50%
of
students’
learning
takes
place
in
this
way.
One
person
suggested
that
students
learn
from
each
other
as
a
community
‘under
responsible
guidance’
from
their
tutors.
That
is,
students
learn
primarily
from
their
tutors,
and
this
facilitates
them
in
learning
efficiently
as
a
community.
1
A
number
of
interviewees
felt
that
studying
on
a
MOOC
entails
a
substantial
element
of
independence
and
self-­‐direction
on
the
part
of
learners.
One
expressed
doubts
about
‘spontaneously
producing
self-­‐directedness
through
OER’.
For
him,
an
important
element
of
education
is
to
develop
‘robust,
critical,
autonomous
citizens’,
and
this
is
only
achievable
through
complex
human
interactions
with
a
teacher
in
a
face-­‐to-­‐face
environment.
This

one
of
their
principal
reservations
about
MOOCs:
difficulty
in
supporting
learners’
conceptual
growth
where
numbers
are
such
that
the
teacher
is
no
longer
able
to
identify
and
rectify
individual
students’
misunderstandings
(esp.
humanities
and
social
sciences
tutors.)
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
4

5. OPEN
RESOURCES
AS
OUTPUTS
FROM
LEARNING
ACTIVITIES
We
didn’t
discuss
open
approaches
to
learning
with
our
interviewees
as
the
data
would
have
been
largely
speculative.
So
we
simply
asked
them
what
kinds
of
learning
outcome
would
be
served
if
students
were
to
create
an
open
educational
resource
as
the
output
from
a
regular
learning
activity.
Only
two
people
made
a
direct
connection
between
student-­‐produced
OER
and
open
practices
as
a
whole.
One
commented
that
the
teacher’s
job
is
also
about
opening
the
student’s
eyes
to
other
knowledge
which
he
or
she
might
share.
But
where
students
are
already
giving
talks
to
schools,
making
YouTube
videos
of
their
experiments,
or
submitting
their
essays
to
competitions,
a
number
of
interviewees
saw
it
as
a
short
step
to
turn
these
artefacts
into
OER.
However,
they
were
concerned
about
the
pedagogic
quality
of
student-­‐created
resources,
in
terms
of
both
content
and
design.
PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING
THROUGH
OPEN
EDUCATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE
Openness
is
not
merely
focused
on
students’
learning.
In
the
form
of
open
educational
knowledge
it
also
has
relevance
to
teachers’
professional
knowledge
about
teaching
and
learning.
Our
interviewees
said
they
learn
from
each
other
informally,
as
well
as
formally
in
staff
development
programmes.
One
person
felt
that
learning
how
to
incorporate
OER
into
one’s
teaching
would
provide
‘an
opportunity
for
creative
re-­‐exploration
of
knowledge
and
how
you
present
it’.
None
of
the
interviewees
had
had
direct
experience
of
‘OER
for
teachers’,
so
their
responses
to
our
questions
were
speculative.
A
tutor
in
the
medical
sciences
felt
that
there
is
scope
for
OER
in
graduate
training
in
particular,
as
the
resources
can
be
customised
to
suit
different
groups.
Seasoned
academics
could
benefit
from
OER
too:
they
‘often
get
stuck
in
a
rut’
and
online
resources
can
help
them
to
reflect
on
their
teaching
and
perhaps
present
it
in
a
different
way.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
5

6. THE
INFLUENCE
OF
OPEN
PRACTICES
IN
RESEARCH
We
wanted
to
find
out
how
far
the
experience
of
open
access
publishing,
involvement
in
‘open
science’
more
generally,
or
engagement
with
social
media
as
part
of
one’s
research
might
have
a
‘cross-­‐over’
effect
on
interviewees’
teaching.
There’s
still
a
great
divide
between
research
and
teaching:
only
a
few
people
appeared
to
perceive
a
natural
or
logical
link
from
open
practices
in
research
to
open
practices
in
teaching.
Reasons
for
this…
1.
The
feeling
that
one’s
teaching
is
personal
to
oneself
in
a
way
that
research
is
not.
2.
A
more
rapid
turnover
in
one’s
research
in
comparison
with
one’s
teaching,
so
there
are
more
opportunities
to
share
it.2
3.
Finally,
many
of
those
active
in
open
science
have
research-­‐only
posts
with
no
teaching
responsibilities.
2
Where
one
teaches
more
or
less
the
same
thing
every
year,
with
only
slight
modifications,
there
is
less
reason
to
share
materials
regularly.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
6

7. MAKING
OPENNESS
THE
DEFAULT
IN
TEACHING
AND
LEARNING
IN
HIGHER
EDUCATION
So,
what
are
the
prospects
for
making
openness
the
default
approach
in
teaching
and
learning?
Let’s
recall
what
‘default’
means
–
here’s
a
definition
from
the
Cambridge
dictionary.
That
is,
openness
isn’t
a
mandatory
requirement
–
something
teachers
have
to
do.
Neither
is
openness
an
option
–
something
that
they
can
do
if
they
feel
like
it.
They
have
the
freedom
not
to,
of
course,
but
they
have
to
actively
opt
out.
From
our
research
I’d
suggest
that
making
openness
the
default
in
teaching
and
learning
is
much
harder
than
making
openness
the
default
in
research.
The
underlying
drivers
are
the
same
as
in
research:
 A
belief
in
knowledge
as
a
public
good,
and
 Altruism
But
the
are
differentiating
factors
are:
 Differences
in
perceptions
of
teaching
versus
research
–
teaching
is
more
personal;
 Personal
disposition
of
individuals:
for
example,
the
role
of
knowledge
self-­‐efficacy
in
their
willingness
to
share;
 There
no
funding
bodies
and,
at
least
in
the
UK,
no
education
ministries
driving/enforcing
openness
–
in
fact,
the
contrary:
no
rewards.
There’s
also
the
question
of
the
relationship
between
‘open’
and
‘closed’
–
or
‘bounded’
–
approaches.
The
overlap
between
teachers’
current
approaches
and
characteristics
begs
a
set
of
considerations
which
Helen
Beetham
and
colleagues
raised
in
their
2012
report
on
the
JISC
OER
programme:
 If
the
pedagogic
goal
with
one’s
own
students
is
what
counts,
can
it
remain
acceptable
to
achieve
that
goal
using
‘closed’
means?
 Is
it
OK
for
teachers
simply
to
pick
and
choose
those
aspects
of
openness
that
mesh
with,
and
enhance,
what
they
do
now?
 Perhaps
the
value
of
going
open,
for
teachers,
is
the
opportunity
to
rediscover
the
specifics
of
their
pedagogy
through
sharing
and
reusing
openly
licensed
resources.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
7

8. But
openness
in
teaching
and
learning
is
desirable
–
that
is,
should
be
the
default
–
in
order
to
 open
up
knowledge
to
everyone,
 live
and
work
in
an
open
world,
and
 prepare
students
for
conducting
research
in
an
open
way.
METAPHORS
Overall,
this
single-­‐institution
study
suggests
that
openness
is
neither
constant
nor
uniform,
but
comprises,
in
Ehler’s
words,
a
‘diverse
landscape’
of
‘patterns
and
configurations
of
educational
practices’
that
may
be
more,
or
less,
open
at
any
one
time.
This
landscape
offers
institutions
the
possibility
of
aiming
for
‘optimal’
rather
than
‘maximal’
openness,
allowing
for
it
to
vary
over
time
and
across
the
different
manifestations
of
open
practice
in
teaching,
learning
and
research
–
and,
of
course,
across
individuals.
Metaphors
abound
in
openness
–
spectrum,
dimmer
switch,
door
–
but
I
don't
think
that
they
capture
the
shifting
multiplicity
of
practices
adequately.
So
as
an
alternative,
I
propose
the
metaphor
of
a
building
with
many
windows.
Its
occupants
adjust
the
windows
in
individual
rooms
in
order
to
achieve
the
required
balance
of
temperature
and
ventilation
at
a
particular
time
and
for
a
particular
need.
ALT-­‐C
2014:
notes
for
presentation
8