• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Li Ow Workshop 26 02 10
 

Li Ow Workshop 26 02 10

on

  • 632 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
632
Views on SlideShare
623
Embed Views
9

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 9

http://cloudworks.ac.uk 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Li Ow Workshop 26 02 10 Li Ow Workshop 26 02 10 Document Transcript

    • How open is “open”? Vision Terms
      • Hard to be open in peer review world
      • Open needed for dig. School
      • Open can make you feel good
      Open Benefit in wider involvement & input In most aspects, research, teaching, communication, technology “ open is not just a ‘nice to have’ of social learning Is this about us being ‘open’ or about looking at how people learn in a world that is increasingly becoming ‘open’ to our learners? – need to consider different interpretations of title. Increased quality of research … outputs
      • What is openness?
      • Flexibility and accommodating research ideas and methods.
      How open is open No barriers “ Free love” i.e. sharing + collaborate on ideas etc How open is open? What is okay to share – How early to release a bright idea to others. Open – social equity social justice How open is open? Disadvantage Yesterday we talked about content/research being used incorrectly, so we must ensure research output is complete / true / checked before opening it up externally for the reputation of OU Legal barriers to being “Open” – IPR, etc Resistance to beig public / open about results before time to analyse / conclude
      • How open is open?
      • open to strangers?
      • Open to friends? (sounds good)
      • These could be partners in other projects, fellows ( Glascal + SCORE)
      • Does this make us feel exposed?
      • What can’t be open?
      Problems at design by committee How open is open? A. Santos ‘ openness’ is a funnel model of education: Open entry – d narrow exit What makes the student to go through the exit is the ‘support’ shouldn’t the question be: “what will support look like”
    • Practices How open is open? It’s open enough if the ‘openness’ of the intervention is enough to make it succeed.
      • Q3
      • Access (experimentation), participation, reflection
      • Challenges on ownership, ethics of research, quality
      Open Benefit in learning from our real experiences, challenges How open is open? Open thinking, generous sharing of ideas, resources, etc. Risks must be carefully managed and processes/expectations made explicit Embarassment How open is open? Benefit Raises profile of OU and it’s research. Benefits to it’s teaching Research conclusions fed into international courses in IET
      • How open is open?
      • What happens if participants want to take research in a direction not originally intended?
      • Open
      • Free speech
      • Time for reflection
      • Access to peers
      No advantes in participation
      • How open?
      • Open source
      • Use and dissemination of open standards
      • Contribute to research open source projects
      • Contribute to standards
      Open (+) Improved internal (!) Coherence
      • It make software open source, people have expectations about support
      • Already security considerations
      • You are also exposing yourselves inhouse – good thing as learn from it, but need to have right mindset to deal with it
      Open (-) Time taken to get stuff open Open Disadvantage – Need for confidence to expose work to criticism! Potential ‘failure’ RESULTS IN FALLING STUDENT NUMBERS How open is open Quality controlled Protecting IP Available to anybody in any sector – not just HE
    • COMMUNICATION Communicating outputs clearly, Good projects Work if : - plan in place and followed, - communication is good For success: public documentation of work as it progresses (blogs, wikis etc) Improves external perception of the OU Research work, Practicing what we preach, Recognition,Room to play What will make the research programme work? a) Collaboration between projects, b) Innovative research methods, c) Innovative ways of publicising what we do What would make it work? Good communication – and using the best tools to aid communication between different projects in the programme and beyond. Succeed? Giving opportunities for researchers to interact + learn about each others research Work: Internet impact, - Recognition, - Practice change
      • COLLECTIVITY
      • What would make it work? Popularise, Engagement, Buy-in from groups traditionally excluded i.e. disabled,
      • educationally, disadvantaged, 3 rd world. Publicity – positive – Govt singing our praises. Generating lots of money
      • Academic reputation (papers, outputs, good courses)
      • What will make the research programme work? Genuine advantages in participation, Time to participate or
      • efficiency savings, A focus on empirical & theoretical work, Shared goals / deliverables
      • Commitment to the programme
      • What will make it work: Clear definition of objectives and as you say a collective ‘by in’
      • Connections inside, Connections outside, Good ideas
      • What will make low work? If we value various contributions and support each other; If we nurture emerging or non
      • traditional ideas and methods
      • “ Openness” is a 2-way street”
      What would make it work STRATEGY What will make the Research Programme work? Pragmatic approach, Clarity and confidence within team, Support and guidance with managing links associated with openness. Willingness to extend our comfort zones Success: Programme planning / Project Planning ‘Fail to plan, plan to fail’; Programme control and reporting; Correct resource profile Fail – lack of the above Questions: Cohesion of goals – ralistic goals – but diversity of proejcts to cover a large cohort of activities + socio-economic groups. Consider definitions of openess/learning within OU not just IET. Identify challenges. Success: If the shape of the programme links with the version of the senior management (Broadly defined) If the work on the project includes the sharpening of the concept of openness to motivate and drive the research. Suceed: Fitting with priorities and agendas of funding bodies. Work:: Synergy with other activity.
      • TECH
      • For success: Open standards (technical)
      • Level 3: What makes it work on external level ….
      • That continues to be an external research agenda …
      • External funding.
      • Level 2 : What will make it work
      • The university (outside other than IET) has this high on its agenda (I think it does
      • Has buyin + push from university PVCs and Deans
      • Learning in open world
      • RP work?
      • getting right combination of funding and people
      • Good partners
      • Clear objectives & vision
      • RESOURCES
      • Balancing caution with aspiration
      • Work: A motivating stretching agenda
      • Projects with
      • outcomes
      • Outputs
      • Impact
      • What makes it work?
      • Level 1 (for individual)
      • It is high enough on the/our personal agenda not to get pushed down by other things
      • So needs to map well onto other drivers
      EVIDENCE What will make he RP work ? ?How will we know it has worked. *If we can show influence/impact beyond IET? Beyond OU: Beyond UK HE sector? *If we change how we behve, how we see the choices & react to these? Work: Demo of successful application of open stuff that’s cheaper (in time and money) than closed alternatives. Will draw in other researchers.. TEACHING / QUALITY Help to increse student recruitment & retention What will make it work? Good quality resources, relevance of reasons to my needs, international documentation stndards, learning materials that can bridge cultures + institutions + industries
    • Ideas for addin value
      • Need to have better representation of the research in the institute, then deliberately look for synergies
      • How to deliver? “Context Web” across IET (and wider)
      • Stakeholder
        • New at programe level  Where to develop supportive research val?
      • Measure:1 yr 3 yr 5 yr
            • Define Exemplers “Infra”/
            • Test - net sink research - supporting other
            • Clarify - net source research partners
      • Measure development of Strand
        • Come up with initatives (technology related: poss to track engagement)
        • Measure engagement i.e. in cloudworks participating from OU staff + students v from others
        • Measure Spread/Impact – takeup or emulating elsewhere
      Refocus
    • Ideas for adding value
      • Joint research bid around the notion of Open Design
      • Adding value: efficient collaboration via tools like Cloudworks
      • Put all WIP papers on the theme in a shared space
      • Value: Build on Open Work, make open a thing to all our work
      • Good flexible dynamic representation of projects + works
      • Yr 1 – activity
        • Yr 2 – money
        • Yr 3 – publications
      • Use Cloudworks effectively
      • Collaborative network is OLNET, this is OLNET’s future
    • ADDING VALUE Taking things forward Cloudworks Building a collaborative network. Use some of the existing OU & wider networks as research friends? SCORE, eLC, JISC projects etc. Action Point: How is the programme going to work? What is the governance? Interdependency planning to ensure Synergy. Solve the collaborative problem – collaborate must be a key cultural activity and sustained not flash in the pan
      • ADD value at level of Programme
      • Joint bids
      • Alerting each other to connections &
      • relevant developments
      • - Legitimation for project
    • OPEN DESIGN
      • Mapping existing projects
      • OULDI Cloudworks?
      • PI Socialearn
      • OLNET (Design) ( Open Ed)
      • EU4All (Flosscom)
      • ?Design for openness
      • or
      • Open Design Processes
      • Issues for Students
      • & staff
      • + ‘openness’ can exclude those outside OU
    • Open Delivery / Presentation/Learning Activity Activity Learning Journeys Pathways Wrong term Tension with Design History split Depth (formality) (level) of learning Casual interest Ask Friends, Google Time/engagement/commitment developing independent learning skills developing independent learning skills OU courses PLD in Social aspects Of ranging form display OERs
    • Open evaluation
      • Not about evaluation of the Programme - broader
      • What might be Open Evaluation meaning?
      • Learner Experience – JISC
      • Learner view holistic experience of student
      • Challenges – analysis
      • representation
      • Being open inside + outside the OU
      • Building on Net Gen. research
      Other voices. Formative eval.
    • How Open is Open What is Open? Us open in our research Or Learner experience in open world Flexibility to accomody research idea + methods How early to rele? i?er see plagiarism Affective Aspects Difficult To be open Peer review Quality Research Aspects Feel good Embarrassment Free love Exposure Confidence Open 2 Who Friends Colleagues Standards Quality Checks Professionalism Generosity Social/Equity Social Justice Research Opportunity Open entry Funnel Model of educat Explicit Expectations Manag risk reflective Barriers Time Peer review Legal barriers copyright Plagiarism + ownership Design oppenners Hijacks ideas Access IP Benefits Wide involvement / input Wildfire activity Impt Coherance – know what was all done Higher Profile for OU What can’t be open? Interviews Job apps Personal data Pos Neg Narrow exam exit
    • What are the ethical, legal and Epistemologica / Challenges in Open research? Wraparound Methodological tools Audience for open research RQ:
      • Open Access Open
      • data
      • Benefits
      • Tools – methodological open
      • Legal/ethical frameworks
      • Depends on discipline
      Further advancement of science Clear definition Purpose audience Issues of scope Cohesion Access / culture or Learning experience
      • Different
      • Levels of
      • Open Research
      • raw data
      • practices
      What impact does it have On resources? (time/staff expertise Q Impact on Region What is changing In academic rules In terms of openings? e-science e-social science Collective intel
    • Research Questions
      • Barriers to participation in formal learning
      • Transition from informal, casual learning
      • How the resources that we have got are being used and where
      • Relationship between participating in formal and informal activities
      • Access to learning – audience
        • Widening participation
      • How do people structure their learning
      • Confidence
      • Technical skills
      • Resources people use and how they use them
      • Intention for study – why do they study
    • RQs
      • How can Open Design work - across cultures?
      • - internationally
      • Is there such a thing as open craft?
      • What is a taxonomy of open design? (agile …
      • What does open design enable?
      • What are the barriers/ tradeoff
    • What will make the programme fail?
      • Lack of
      • RESOURCES – time, people, money
      • ATTITUDES – lack of staff engagement, fear of openness, lack of ‘buy in’ by senior management – being over-ambitious, paying lip service to ‘open’, lack of encouragement/feedback, habit, perfectionism, distraction.
      • LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE – quality, planning, connections, communication, dissemination
      • EXTERNAL FACTORS – Marginalisation, wider interest/funding moving on, focus on REF, others steal & do it better, funders reluctance, devalued by poor thinking
      • LACK OF DEFINITION – unclear goals + deliverables, about research or encouraging openness, losing initiative/direction
    • Make Research Programme Fail?
      • Resources
      • Attitudes & behaviours
      • Lack of programme / project infrastructure
      • External factors
      • Lack of definition
    • CAN OF WORMS?
      • Openness of candid
      • Of Public gaffs
      • Improvable objects
      • Language of cultural values
      • Imbalance of researchers
    • Synergies
      • All
      • Funders
      • Foundations
      • EU
      • JISC
      • EXSRC
    • WORKSHOP FEEDBACK EVALUATION
      • LIKE
      • Interactive
      • Mixing with colleagues
      • Participation
      • Exposure to a wider group within IET
      • Activities generated a great number of ideas
      • Workshop generated a 109 ideas: Challenge is to make sense of it all
      • Workshop: Liked working with IET colleagues I don’t normally work with and finding out about their work, expertise and interests.
      • Good busy time
      • Evaluating this workshop!
      • Workshop – worked fine. Do in 2 hours next time 
      • DISLIKE
      • Workshop fatigue (lots of them!)
      • Lack of reference to original concepts of openness- no continuity
      • Venue – noise
      • Free love agenda
      • RT@jamesaczel meeting room fine apart from lighting, noise, temperature & lack of display screens.
      • Intensive + short break would have been refreshing
    • Evaluation
      • What worked
      • Group work + changing around the groups
      • Engagement / contribution across groups
      • Post its are good
      • Break down in groups allow further discussion
      • Free tea + biscuits
      • Brainstorming collaboration
      • What didn’t
      • Workshop too hot  Too noisy
      • We did not get to far as to ‘actions’
      • Too many topics + activities – not much time for action points
      • Clear structure
      • Diversity of themes
      • Idea: develop theories and methodologies for articulating and representing existing as emerging practice of learning in an open world
      • Measure 1 (year) research question + project
      • 3 – 5 years methods
      • theories
      • Action points
      • Grainne to synthesize + feedback collaborative outputs  VISIBILITY 
      • To do: Document current “open practices” in IET
      • Research & publish implictions of (potensially massive) open data sets: - for human resources
      • - for tools
      • Add value: Joint bid ideas +
      • - paper writing (e.g. e-science/learning/pathways
      • - collaborative networks + synergies with existing networks on e-social science/e-humanities
    • Evaluation
      • What worked?
      • Lively discussion
      • Open atmosphere
      • Breadth / diversity of experiences
      • Good framework from Grainne
      • Post its good idea
      • Participatory
      • Discussion
      • What Didn’t
      • Didn’t work: too many activities
      • Time to work together
      • Didn’t work: - brain / time space / planning – my!!
      • - a lot to do
      • Capturing output (maybe)
      • Action
      • Action: Develop overlap with Digital scholarship
      • Share Educause paper
      • Share: Introductory links / papers on learning – design
      • Develop paper on collectivit é