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.

Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development

179 views

Published on

Chrissi Nerantzi

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development

  1. 1. Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development
  2. 2. UK and wider context, challenges and opportunities Competition and financial incentives for HEIs in the UK as a driver to achieve teaching excellence (TEF, 2016a; 2016b) CPD within institutions, often perceived as top-down approach (Crawford, 2009) Academics want freedom: to pursue their own interests in L&T, part of networks and communities, often external/disciplinary ones (Crawford, 2009) Open cross-institutional collaborations increase engagement in CPD and drive innovation in teaching (Pawlyshyn, Braddlee, Casper & Miller, 2013)
  3. 3. An alternative for engaging academics in CPD, raise the quality of teaching & innovate Competition Collaboration & Openness Nerantzi, C. (accepted) Alternative approaches to the TEF: raising the quality of teaching through openness, collaboration and innovation, in: Compass, Greenwich: University of Greenwich A proposition
  4. 4. Phenomenographic PhD study (Marton, 1981): collaborative open learning experience in academic development Collective case study (Stake, 1995) approach for data collection: FDOL132 & #creativeHE 22 individual semi-structured interviews 2 surveys for background information to construct the case Research questions • RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning experienced by learners? • RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses most strongly influence learners' experience and how? • RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key features of a proposed collaborative open learning framework for open cross-institutional academic development courses? The study
  5. 5. Case study 2 https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/261 5/creativity-for-learning-in-higher- education/ Creativity for Learning in HE by Chrissi Nerantzi for CELT, MMU is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Case study 1 https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/ Collective case study approach to collect data PBL Negotiated Learning in groups was a choice! Groups supported by facilitators from collab institutions
  6. 6. Learner needs Design considerations Learner engagement patterns The dimensions of the cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework CC BY-NC-SA
  7. 7. • identification, gaining insight into diverse practices • coordination, connecting diverse viewpoints • reflection, opportunity for better understanding own and others’ perspectives and • transformation, leading to collaboration and change in behaviour or practices. Boundary crossing & opportunities for learning (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) • may increase conflict and misinterpretations! • identifying strategies to overcome these are important Boundary crossing & challenges (Algers, 2016)
  8. 8. Open learning as course organisation (C1.1) Open learning as a facilitated ex. (C1.2) Open learning as an activity-based ex. (C1.3) Open learning as designed for collaboration (C1.4) Structuralfactors(AreaA)Livedexperience(AreaB) contributing factors Collaboration as engagement in learning (C3.1) Selective Immersive Collaboration as relationship building (C3.3) Group focus Collaboration as shared product creation (C3.2) Process-focus High product expectations Individual focus Process-focus Low product expectations Phenomenographic outcome space of this study Cross- boundary learning through modes of partici- pation (C2.1) Cross- boundary learning through time, places and space (C2.2) Cross- boundary learning through diverse pro- fessional contexts (C2.4) Cross- boundary learning through culture and language (C2.3)
  9. 9. Selective collaborator’s patterns Immersive collaborator’s patterns • Focus on self • “Lives” elsewhere • Low group product expectations • Some small group participation • Might use course to complement other studies, professional recognition • Support mainly from elsewhere • Focus on group • “Lives” in the group • High group product expectations • Might be studying towards credits on course, or professional recognition • Support mainly from within the group The framework: Learner engagement patterns CC BY-NC-SA Learner needs Design considerations Learner engagement patterns
  10. 10. Selective collaborator’s needs Immersive collaborator’s needs Milestone cohort activities + Social relationships, community Some small group activities + Regular buddy / small group activities Light touch facilitation + Regular facilitation Sporadic synchronous + Regular asynchronous and synchronous Sporadic group purposes + Group purposes and co-creating meaning Process + Co-created products The framework: Learner needs CC BY-NC-SA Learner needs Design considerations Learner engagement patterns
  11. 11. Collaborating institutions Organisation, and facilitation team Learner profiles and cross- boundary considerations Learning and Teaching approach Group work and community Resources, tools and open licensing Accreditation / Recognition Online / Offline mode Course outcomes and activities Timing and scheduling The Framework: Design considerations CC BY-NC-SA Learner needs Design considerations Learner engagement patterns
  12. 12. Learner engagement patterns Selective collaborating Immersive collaborating • Focus on self • “Lives” elsewhere • Low group product expectations • Some small group participation • Might use course to complement other studies, professional recognition • Support mainly from elsewhere • Focus on group • “Lives” in the group • High group product expectations • Might be studying towards credits on course, or professional recognition • Support mainly from within the group Learner needs Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator Milestone cohort activities + Social relationships, community Some small group activities + Regular buddy / small group activities Light touch facilitation + Regular facilitation Sporadic synchronous + Regular asynchronous and synchronous Sporadic group purposes + Group purposes and co-creating meaning Process + Co-created products Design considerations Collaborating institutions Organisation, and facilitation team Learner profiles and cross-boundary considerations Learning and Teaching approach Group work and community Resources, tools and open licensing Accreditation / Recognition Online / Offline mode Course outcomes and activities Timing and scheduling The cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
  13. 13. • Academic developers: to create new type of CPD (cross-institutional, co-development, co-facilitation) • Academic staff: to experience new type of learning, considering for own practice • Students in HE: to learn with academic staff and the public, widen horizons, build confidence • Professionals from other sectors: to connect with HE professionals and students, cross-fertilisation of ideas • The public: to connect with higher education, open communities of collaboration, co-creation • Higher education: to become part of life and society, based on democratic values and the ethos of openness and collaboration Potential usefulness of the framework for…
  14. 14. New horizons?
  15. 15. 6. 1 RQ 1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses experienced that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning? 6.2 RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses influence learners’ experience and how? 6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public) The courses’ cross-boundary nature brought academic staff, students, public together to learn together. Participants were formal and informal learners from different cultures. This diversity enriched their collaborative open learning experience and made learning more interesting to them. 6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support) The facilitator support was vital for collaborative open learning, to help build group relationships and resolve technological and course issues and build peer-support capacity. The non-directive facilitator and the facilitator as co-learner was most welcome by participants. 6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile) Participants engaged online and offline in collaborative open learning activities and the course. They also used their mobile devices to connect with course activities. The offline dimension of engagement was especially relevant for ‘selective’ collaborators and provides insights that open learning does not exclusive happen online. 6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design) The flexibility of the collaborative open learning design, using inquiry-based activities worked for ‘selective’ and ‘immersive’ collaborators, when this was agreed with participants and especially when the focus of collaboration was the process. 6.1.3 Learners as community Especially ‘immersive ‘ collaborators were seeking to be part of a community. They cultivated social relationships. Synchronous social media video technologies helped them in this process. The cross-boundary nature of the groups was especially attractive to participants and generated increased interest for each other. 6.2.3 Course as community Participants saw the course as a community that continued beyond the pre-defined timeframe. The cross- institutional and cross-boundary dimensions of the courses, that also brought together formal and informal learning using social media, presents a new academic development approach that is a continuum. The Framework: Design considerations
  16. 16. Towards a new model to practise academic development… and HE? cross-boundary community Qualifications (PgCert, MA) Professional recognition Informal CPD (workshops, conferences, webinars, tweetchats etc.) scaffold provided by a cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
  17. 17. References Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A., 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. June 2011, 81 (2). pp. 132–169. Algers, A., 2016. OEP as boundary practices – how academy and society can inform each other. ExplOER project webinar. Accessed from https://connect.sunet.se/p4gxj96aglg/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal BIS, 2016a. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility & student choice, Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BIS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge- economy.pdf BIS, 2016b. Teaching excellence framework: Year two specification. Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BOS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf Conole, G., 2012. E-learning in higher education, new technologies and education for multilingualism, second rectors’ conference, European parliament, Brussels, 18-19 October 2012. [keynote]. Accessed from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/interp/rectorsconference2012/docs/pdf/conole_presentation.pdf on 28th May 2016. Crawford, K., 2009. Continuing professional development in higher education: Voices from below. University of Lincoln. [EdD thesis]. Accessed from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño-Muñoz, J., 2016. Opening up Education: A support framework for higher education institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN: doi: 10.2791/293408. Assessed from http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/opening-education-support-framework- higher-education-institutions Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, G., Casper, L. & Miller, H., 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation, educause review, Why IT matters to HE. Updated 04/11/2013. Accessed from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-innovation on 20th September 2015. Weller, M. 2016c. Emerging OER discipline, 7 September 2016. Accessed from http://www.slideshare.net/mweller/emerging-oer- discipline
  18. 18. Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development

×