Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Open Educational Practices in small languages: the role of community engagement


Published on

Presentation at the seminar "“Open Education in Minority Languages: Chances and Perspectives”, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, October 7, 2015

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Open Educational Practices in small languages: the role of community engagement

  1. 1. This project was financed with the support of the European Commission. This publication is the sole responsibility of the author and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Open Educational Practices in small languages: the role of community engagement Katerina Zourou and Giulia Torresin, Web2Learn, Greece LangOER seminar in Leeuwarden, October 7, 2015
  2. 2. Setting the scene: OEP and Open Learning Ecologies • In favour of a conceptual shift from OER (as mere content) to OEP (as content situated, developed and enriched in a given socio- technical context) Ehlers, U.-D., Caine, A. (2011) Moving To Open Learning Ecologies: From Open Educational Resources To Open Educational Practices. In A. Szucs and M. Paulsen, Proceedings of EDEN Annual Conference 2011.316-323. • Adoption & development of OER/OEP: common issue faced by small & RML languages
  3. 3. Plan Plan Community-driven engagement part 1  Small language communities’ engagement in crowdsourcing and its value for Open Educational Practices Community-driven engagement part 2  Facilitating community-driven engagement through design
  4. 4. CROWDSOURCING AND OEP Community-driven engagement part 1
  5. 5. Rheingold’s talk on the coming world of collaboration, participatory media and collective action
  6. 6.
  7. 7. Crowdsourcing “Engagement of individuals who voluntarily offer their knowledge to a knowledge seeker (an organisation, a company, etc. Howe (2006). (…) It can be seen not only as a movement towards massive user engagement in an unrestricted and collaborative manner, but also as a means by which companies exploit users' collective efforts of knowledge building, without a corresponding remuneration, "[by] tap[ping] the latent talent of the crowd" (Howe, 2006, np)” Zourou, K. & Lamy, M.-N. (2013)
  8. 8. See/read also: •Anna Comas-Quinn talk at 2014 LangOER webinar •Beaven, T; Comas-Quinn, A.; de los Arcos, B.; Hauck, M. and Lewis, T. (2013). The Open Translation MOOC: creating online communities to transcend linguistic barriers. In: OER 13, 26-27 March 2013, Potential for small state and RML languages?
  9. 9. From Window opener for OEP: Re-use of open resources in new educational contexts, including formal education => Genuine Open Educational Practices OER Localisation: “adaptation of resources to meet the particular needs of end-users in several culturally and linguistically diverse contexts (…) OER localisation can include changing the language, pedagogical approach, content, imagery, and the religious, cultural and geographical references featured in resources”. Perryman, L.-A. et al. (2014)
  10. 10. • The TESS-India project is led by The Open University in the UK and is funded by UK aid from the UK government. It is working towards improving the quality of teacher education in India. Initiated in November 2012, the project focuses on the professional development of teacher educators and teachers in 8 states in India
  12. 12. Designing artifacts to facilitate community-driven OEP • ExplOERer: 2-year European Commission funded project “Supporting OER re-use in learning ecosystems” • One strand of activities dedicated to “ Social networking and gaming capacities of OER” (Katerina & Giulia in charge) – the role of social networking and game mechanics in (national) Repositories of OER (ROER) and other digital learning spaces – An analysis of social networking and gaming features of ROER (ongoing research) •
  13. 13. First results I Most frequently embedded features are: •The possibility of creating a user profile •Open APIs
  14. 14. First results II Most frequently embedded features are: •The possibility to react or comment a resource •The possibility to recommend a resource to a user
  15. 15. Most represented features Most represented feature Least represented feature
  16. 16. -
  17. 17. Open APIs Collecting points according to users’ feebacks
  18. 18. Some thoughts to take away: • Speakers of small and regional languages do engage in communities around OEP: – Language preservation – Collective action • In some cases community engagement isn’t so natural: role of expert users and design features in enhancing community dynamics • Greater interest in designing features that enhance user- engagement comes from ROER in small/regional languages
  19. 19. Thank you! References •Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2012). "Gamification and the Internet". Pew Research media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_Internet_2012_Gamification.pdf •Howe, J. (2006). "The Rise of Crowdsourcing". Wired, 14 (6.) •Perryman, L-A et al 2014 Learning from TESS-India’s Approach to OER Localisation Across Multiple Indian States. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2014(2): 7, pp. 1-11, http:// •Zourou, K. & Lamy, M.-N. (2013) « Social networked game dynamics in web 2.0 language learning communities », Alsic, Vol. 16, •Zourou, K.2014. Social networking and gaming capacities of OER. Work in progress-slides available: gaming-capacities-of-oer-output-3-slides @web2Learn_eu Web2Learn_eu Staying in touch
  20. 20. Images • cmos-use-crowdsourcing-to-win/ • © Khan Academy • © Amara