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 Practice and Preservice Teacher Education

229 views

Published on

Presentation at 2017 conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education - Austin, TX

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Open Educational Practice and Preservice Teacher Education

  1. 1. Open Educational Practice and Preservice Teacher Education: Understanding past practice and future possibilities Peter Albion, David Jones, Janice Jones University of Southern Queensland, Australia Chris Campbell Griffith University, Australia Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 2017 Austin, TX
  2. 2. Introduction Setting the scene
  3. 3. Is open the new educational black? Learning objects & repositories OpenCourseWare Open Education Consortium Open Educational Resources (OER) Open Educational Resources University (OERu) Open Educational Practices (OEP) Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  4. 4. Open = ? • Wiley (2010; 2014) – Objects that are shared and can be • Retained • Reused • Redistributed • Revised • Remixed – No sharing = no education • Sharing is fundamental to advancing education – Historic effect of print = lower cost of sharing – Online sharing lowers cost toward zero SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  5. 5. Unrealised promise of OER • Developing world – Scale of educational demand is huge • Building & staffing is impossible • Online using OER offers solution • Uptake of OER is limited – Described as first phase • Developing basic functions – Second phase • Open Education Practices (OEP) – Application of OER SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  6. 6. OER & OEP in teacher education Exploring the value of OER & OEP in teacher education
  7. 7. Professional engagement • Becker & Riel (2000) – Professional engagement = interest beyond class – Higher levels associated with • Constructivist views & computer use – Contrasted with ‘private practice’ • Berry et al. (2010) – Engagement reduced teacher wastage – 20% of value for students from shared expertise – 90% of teachers thought networking improved teaching SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  8. 8. Teachers and open practice • Lortie (1975) – Teachers are often isolated • Fall back on experience in schools • Hargreaves (2010) – School culture restricts collaborative improvement • Belland (2009) – Teachers replicate experience through habitus SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  9. 9. Moving teachers to OER & OEP • Liable to be challenging – For reasons discussed – Teacher engagement invisible to others • Perception of classroom only activity • Conventional education is product focused – Assessment of individual outputs – Collaboration discouraged or resented • Teacher education needs to encourage OEP SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  10. 10. Curating resources • Teachers collect teaching resources – Multiple & varied sources – Tools - Pinterest, Scoop.it, etc. • Preservice teachers – Curation activity develops skills – Professional contribution • Curation may offer a path to OEP SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  11. 11. Frameworks for OER & OEP Making sense of the relationship
  12. 12. What is open? • Pomerantz & Peek (2016) – 50 shades of open – A ‘fashionable’ marker • Openwashing = describing non-open things as open • Open Educational Quality Initiative (2011) – Despite availability of OER uptake is limited – Requires movement beyond access • Learning as construction & sharing • Culture change – Matrix linking OER & OEP SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  13. 13. Elements of OEP (Ehlers, 2011) SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  14. 14. Continuum of open practice (Stagg, 2014) • Seeks to evaluate progress toward OEP • Begins with consumption • Progresses to co-creation with learner • Some doubt about sequence SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  15. 15. Matrix & continuum overlaid SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  16. 16. Tracking progress with OER & OEP Some illustrations of our open(ish) practice in teacher preparation
  17. 17. Rambling on learning paths • 3rd year ICT pedagogy course – 400 students, 60% online • Weekly learning paths – Series of resources & activities including OER – Students post reactions to blogs • Become part of ramble for subsequent students – LMS prevents open sharing – Students are setting objectives, sharing reactions, & modifying paths – A or B SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  18. 18. Digging into Diigo • LMS is safe & reliable – Limits outside access & sharing • Sidestep using outside services • Diigo used for webpage annotation – Readings assigned & student notes shared via Diigo – Residue of experience is passed on = B or E • Diigo & Twitter used to share OER into LMS – Simple sharing = A SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  19. 19. Blogging as co-creation • Driven by LMS limitations • Aggregator & Moodle module – Share student blogs in LMS – Within & between offers – Student reactions overlay & co-create rambles – Interaction is in the open but rambles in LMS – B or E + element of co-creation (Stage 5) SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  20. 20. Student creators & sharers • Relate-create-donate – Students create/share resources – Collections openly available • Seek-sense-share – Curated collections of existing resources • Students create & share with class & beyond – Peer review in class for quality assurance – Choice about content & form – C & Stage 5 SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  21. 21. Lessons from experience What we have learned
  22. 22. Reality is messier than models • Both models were helpful • Neither was a neat fit – Activities were often ambiguous – Crossed over categories • Other researchers responded similarly • Useful as guides to evaluating practice SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  23. 23. PST responses • Account based on recollections, no formal data • Activities required unfamiliar software – PSTs were stretched • Being open posed challenges – Unfamiliar with software and sharing – Schooling prefers tidy products over process – Open collaborative practice is discouraged SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  24. 24. Collaborative creation challenges • Creating & sharing resources – Seen as relevant and valuable – Wanted tight specifications vs open process • Sharing work in progress – Fear of misappropriation • Peer review – Appreciated as source of ideas and feedback • Use of ‘special’ sites suggests lack of presence for professional practice SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  25. 25. Open = 5 Rs • Retain, reuse, redistribute, revise, remix • Courses address questions of use • Should encourage explicit CC licences – Need for additional work SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  26. 26. A path forward Some small steps we could take
  27. 27. OEP in teacher education • Little evidence of persistent collaboration • Piecemeal adoption of OEP is not enough SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  28. 28. Steps ahead • Program-wide approach to OEP – Move habitus away from ‘private practice’ • De-emphasise grading of products – Attend more to process and visible collaboration • Facilitate at institutional level – Encourage coherent professional presence • Integrate with profession – Engage PSTs with profession SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  29. 29. Dreaming for a moment • Focus on teacher planning • Develop support system with OEP – Templates & tools – Linked to support networks – Facilitate comment & reuse • Graduate teachers enculturated in OEP SITE 2017 Austin, TX
  30. 30. Contact Peter.Albion@usq.edu.au David.Jones@usq.edu.au Janice.Jones@usq.edu.au Chris.Campbell@griffith.edu.au SITE 2017 Austin, TX

×