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.

Openness and praxis (#SRHE)

Presentation of my preliminary research findings at SRHE Digital University Network seminar "Critical Perspectives on 'Openness' in Higher Education" - SRHE, London, 18-Nov-2016

  • Be the first to comment

Openness and praxis (#SRHE)

  1. 1. Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education Catherine Cronin CELT, NUI Galway @catherinecronin Society for Research into Higher Education Digital University Network 18-Nov-2016 #SRHE Image: CC0 1.0 cogdog
  2. 2. Education is inherently an ethical and political act. Michael Apple
  3. 3. summary of 1st phase of my PhD research study: exploring the use of open educational practices (OEP) in higher education
  4. 4. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  5. 5. networked educators networked students 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. 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 reuse for use, adaptation & redistribution by others
  12. 12. • 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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) IndividualInstitutional
  15. 15. 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)
  16. 16. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  17. 17. Research approach Constructivist grounded theory: inductive, comparative, emergent & open-ended (Strauss & Corbin, 1990); also acknowledging social context, subjectivity & interpretive understandings (Charmaz, 2014) Research setting One higher education institution in Ireland Research method Semi-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
  18. 18. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  19. 19. Not using OEP for teaching Using OEP for teaching DIGITAL NETWORKING PRACTICES Main digital identity is university-based Not using social media (or personal use only) Combine university & open identities Using social media personal/prof (but not teaching) Main digital identity is open Using social media for personal/professional (including teaching) DIGITAL TEACHING PRACTICES Using VLE only Using free resources, little knowledge of C or CC Using VLE + open tools Using & reusing OER PERSONAL VALUES Strong attachment to personal privacy Strict boundaries (P/P & S/T) Some use of digital natives discourse (but not the term itself) Valuing privacy & openness; balance Accepting porosity across boundaries Developing digital literacies; self & stud. increasing openness
  20. 20. • 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
  21. 21. Balancing privacy and openness Developing digital literacies Valuing social learning Challenging traditional teaching role expectations inner circle (2 dimensions) Networked Individuals both circles (4 dimensions) Networked Educators 4 dimensions shared by educators using OEP for teaching
  22. 22. “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)
  23. 23. “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)
  24. 24. Balancing privacy & openness Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks
  25. 25. “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)
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. • Context • Research Questions • Key Literature • Methodology • Findings & Analysis • Preliminary Conclusions & Questions
  28. 28. “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)
  29. 29. • 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
  30. 30. Thank you! Catherine Cronin @catherinecronin Image: CC BY 2.0 visualpanic
  31. 31. all presentation references : blog post summary of presentation: /openness-and-praxis/
  32. 32. 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)
  33. 33. 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)