Exploring learner experiences in open cross-institutional and cross-boundary professional development courses in higher education, a Phd project work-in-progress Chrissi Nerantzi, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom, @chrissinerantzi

1. “Developing a collaborative learning design
framework for open cross-institutional
academic development courses”
Exploring learner experiences in open cross-institutional and cross-boundary
professional development courses in higher education,
a Phd project work-in-progress
Chrissi Nerantzi, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom, @chrissinerantzi

2. Chrissi Nerantzi @chrissinerantzi, Academic Developer, CELT, MMU
Glossop where I liveManchester where I work
My favourite place on earth
I still
LOVE ice
cream
My boysWhat recipe?
Playful

3. Overview
1. Context
2. Research questions
3. Methodology
4. Progress
5. First findings (surveys + phenomenographic
analysis)

4. Context
• Open practice
• Informal cross-institutional provision
• Academic development (professional development staff teaching in higher
education
• Collaborative learning
• How open collaborative learning is experienced in these settings
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7137/13875633534_bcc5f14993_c.jpg
Harnessing opportunities, experience new ways of learning and developing

5. Research questions
RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development
courses experienced that have been designed to provide
opportunities for collaborative learning?
RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic
development courses influence learners' experience and how?
RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from research questions 1
and 2, what are the key features of a collaborative design
framework for open online cross-institutional academic
development provision?

6. • Decentralised CPD with
other institutions and
linking to and sector-
wide activities (King,
2004; Bamber, 2009;
Crawford, 2009)
• Working together! To
embrace open
practices based on
collaboration (The
Cape Town Open
Education Declaration,
2008)
• Collaborate to compete
(HEFCE, 2011)
• Freeing education,
cross-institutional
collaboration (Nerantzi,
2011)
• Join-up, open-up
(European
Commission, 2013)
• Cross-institutional
development (Smyth et
al., 2013)
• Break out of
institutional silos
(Cochrane et al. 2014)
• Connecting
universities, future
models of HE (British
Council, 2015)
• Cross-institutional
consortia (NMC HE
Edition, 2015)
open-up & join-up
Cross-institutionalcollaboration

7. Year first
appeared
Framework Type of framework Formal/
informal
Designed for mode of
application
Adaptations Education sector Open
education
1971 OU SOL (Supported Open Learning)
model (Swan, 2004; McAndrew &
Weller, 2005; Jones et al., 2009; also
mentioned in Weller, 2014; Jones,
2015)
Conceptual Formal Distance learning Blended
learning, online
learning
HE
1985 Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) (Stahl et al., 2006)
Conceptual Formal,
informal
Learning supported
by technology
Schools, HE
1991 Community of Practice (Lave and
Wenger, 1991)
Evidence-based Informal Learning Online learning,
Blended
learning
2000 Community of Inquiry framework
(Garrison et al., 2000; 2010)
Evidence-based Formal Blended learning Online learning HE
2002 5-stage model
(Salmon, 2002; Salmon, 2013)
Evidence-based Formal Online learning Blended
learning
HE MOOCs
2002 Conversational Framework (Laurillard,
2002)
Conceptual Formal Learning supported
by technology
HE
2009 3E Framework (Smyth, 2009) Evidence-based Formal Blended learning Online learning FE, HE
2012 Online Collaborative Learning Theory
(Harasim, 2012)
Evidence-based Formal Online learning HE
2013 7Cs of the Learning Design Framework
(Conole, 2013b)
Conceptual Formal Blended learning,
Online learning
HE MOOCs
2014 5C Framework (Nerantzi &
Beckingham, 2015b)
Conceptual Formal,
informal
Online learning Learning
supported by
technology
HE Open
courses

8. Phenomenography
(Marton, 1981)
uncovering variations
of conceptions of the
collective experience
as they are described
Method: Semi-structured
interviews (Fontana & Frey,
1994)
Purposeful sampling often
used in phenomenography
to maximise ‘information-
rich cases’ relevant to
research (Patton, 2002)
Sampling strategy: Collective
case study approach (Stake,
1995)
Methodology

9. Case 1
https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/
132
Informal
collaborating
institutions
Open
Education
Europa
Teacher
Contest
Finalist 2015
@BYOD4L
@OpenNetLearn
@FOS4L

10. Case 2
https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/2615/creativity-for-learning-in-higher-education/
Informal collaborating institutions & partners
Creativity for
Learning in HE
by Chrissi
Nerantzi for CELT,
MMU is licensed
under a Creative
Commons
Attribution-
ShareAlike 4.0
International
License.
Open
Education
Europa
Teacher
Contest
Finalist 2015
Shortlisted for Credo Digital
Award for Information Literacy
2016, highly commended
Offered also
during
OEW16
#creativeHE to be offered then again!

11. Commonalities of cases FDOL pilot (FDOL131)
University of Salford and Karolinska
Institutet
Case 1: FDOL132
University of Salford, Karolinska
Institutet and Manchester Metropolitan
University
Case 2: CreativeHE
Manchester Metropolitan University, London
Metropolitan University, University of
Macedonia, Creative Academic and Lifewide
Education networks
Cases
 Based on academic
development
courses linked to
existing
institutional
module at
postgraduate level
in at least one
higher education
institution
 Cross-institutional
participation of
colleagues from at
least two higher
education
institutions
 Collaborative
learning as choice
 Development using
freely available
social media
platforms
 Openly licensed
courses using a
creative commons
licence
 Developed or co-
developed by
researcher
 Facilitated by a
small group of
distributed
facilitators
10 12 8 Duration in weeks
Feb – May 2013 Sep – Dec 2013 Sep – Nov 2015 Dates
Optional, in small groups using PBL
with peripheral and core
participation
Optional, in small groups using PBL Optional, in small groups or pairs using a variety
of pedagogical approaches agreed with learners
Collaborative
design features
Collaborative: University of Salford
and Karolinska Institutet
Collaborative: University of Salford and
Karolinska Institutet
Manchester Metropolitan University Development
Certificate of participation Open badges for participation Recognition for
open learners
n/a At the University of Salford: approved
Flexible, Distance and Online learning
module at postgraduate level as part of
the PgCert in Academic Practice.
At Karolinska Institutet: Part of study
towards the accredited development
courses 2-weeks or 5-weeks.
At Manchester Metropolitan University: Part of
the Creativity for Learning module, option to also
use work towards FLEX 15 or FLEX 30 modules. All
three are part of the MA in Higher Education.
University of Macedonia: part of MA in Lifelong
Learning
Formal study
option
n/a n/a London Metropolitan University: part of Take5
initiative.
Study linked to
further local
engagement
opportunities

12. Research design
Case 1
FDOL132
(2013)
(n=19)
Case 2
#creativeHE
(2015)
(n=14)
Initial survey, 19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey, 11 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
Pool 1 Organisaton
4 categories of description
Pool 2 Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 3 Cross-Boundaries
4 categories of description
Outcome space – to create
Collaborative learning framework – to create
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)

13. All data collected
December 2015
Details Case 1
FDOL132
Case 2
#creativeHE
Case 1 + Case 2
Expression of interest 20 28 48
Completed consent
form, participants in
study
19 14 33
Completed initial survey 17 8 25
Completed final survey 11 11 22
Interviews 11 11 22

14. Some of the findings so far…

15. Frequency (n=23) %
ISQ 15: In which country do you live?
UK 13 57
Sweden 6 26
Canada 2 9
Norway 1 4
Uganda 1 4
ISQ 18: What is your highest qualification?
Doctoral qualification 10 40
Masters qualification 11 44
Undergraduate qualification 2 8
Other 2 8
ISQ 2: Please indicate your employment status
Full-time 20 80
Part-time 4 16
Voluntary 1 4
ISQ 3: Please indicate your employment sector
Higher Education 22 88
Public Sector 2 8
Further Education 1 4
survey data: demographics

16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
independent study [ISQ 12]
being supported by other learners [ISQ 12]
being supported by a tutor/facilitator [ISQ 12]
participating in a structured course [ISQ 12]
using media-rich resources (video, audio, animation
etc.) [ISQ 12]
participating in group tasks/group projects [ISQ 12]
feedback on work [ISQ 4]
informal recognition for study (certificate) [ISQ 4]
study towards a qualification/academic credits [ISQ 4]
Participate in a specific course unit/topic only [ISQ 5]
Combining ISQ 4, ISQ 5 and ISQ 12 (%, n=22) responses and FSQ 6 (%,
n=22) indicating how effective/valuable the below activities are for
learning (FDOL132 & #creativeHE)
Final survey (FSQ 6) % (n=22)
Initial survey (ISQ 4, ISQ 5, ISQ 12) % (n=25)
survey data

17. An opportunity to reflect on the course via an open question
FSQ10: Is there anything else you would like to share about the course?
(FDOL132 & #creativeHE, n=15)
Positive comments – course level Challenges – course level
- Enjoyment
- Learning
- Individuals from different backgrounds
and cultures
- Students and educators learning
together
- Opportunity to link course to own
practice
- Give something back to the community
- Raised self-awareness
- Initial challenges with the technology
- Time issues
- The need of course learning outcomes
was challenged
Positive comments - group level Challenges – group level
- Potential increase in motivation and
engagement recognised
- Value of synchronous communication
and collaboration
- Synchronous communication and related
time constraints
- Cross-cultural challenges experienced
- PBL approach seen as too complex
- Lack of clarity about participants working
towards credits and related confusion
survey data

18. Countries of residence of participants
FDOL132 & #creativeHE (n=22,
interviews only)
13
4
3
1
1
male
50%
female
50%
Gender of interviewees
(FDOL132 & creativeHE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
academic developer
lecturer
learning technologist
librarian
postgraduate student
retired
consultant
Interviewees' occupations
(FDOL132 & creativeHE)
Data linked to Interviews

20. 7 April 2016 Pool of Meanings

21. Cross-boundary learning
through modes of
participation
… as a blurred formal and informal learning
experience
… as a valued informal learning experience
… as an assessment challenge for formal
participation
… as an opportunity to explore recognition
for learning
Cross-boundary learning
through time and place
… as a continuum
… as an interruption
Cross-boundary learning
through culture and language
… as inclusion
… as exclusion
Cross-boundary learning
through mixed professional
contexts
… as fertiliser
… as discomfort
POOL3:Cross-Boundaries

22. Cross-boundary learning
through culture and language
… as inclusion
“I like the basic concept of the course. I like the fact that I was collaborating with participants not only professional
backgrounds, but linguistic background, cultural background educational background. […] We had to remember again our
English. Not only in a written dimension, but in an oral one too. Something that was totally challenging. And, of course, the
rest of our participants who were heroes to hear us, they supported us and never made any statement or insult, for
example. They were really encouraging and supportive. In that way they were trying to, I think, they were trying to set up
‘we’re not here to judge you about the fact that maybe you, make errors or you mix perhaps some words and I don't know
what else, but we’re here to share our thoughts, opinions, ideas’. And, of course, there was an image that was shared in the
community that was ‘never judge a person who doesn’t speak your language. He just knows another one’. So this motto
was, was present in the, in the community. No one never said anything about errors or syntax, syntactical or grammatical
errors.” C1
“We were from two different countries in my group. And that was, I think that was more attractive for me rather than
different institutions. I mean if everybody was from UK, maybe because I think, or I feel that I know the UK system and how
it works, maybe it wouldn't have made any difference.
I see how things are working in different countries, because maybe we are taking things for granted. Maybe I think that
everybody's doing e-learning in a certain way, for example. And then I realise that they are doing it differently or they're not
doing it or, you know? So from that point of view it was good. […] I think that I felt good of contributing with my experience
to what they're doing. So when, they ask something, and I saw that it can work in a certain way because we have done it
here in UK I could tell them what we have done and then they can experiment. So from that point of view it felt good, of
sharing information.” F7
“We were more people at the beginning in the PBL group which can be difficult to handle. But I think the Google hangout
works better than Adobe Connect when you are like 6, 7, 8 people in a discussion. But then we were more like 3, 2, 5
people and of course it is smaller group, it is easier to feel safe, to feel connected with the people there and in the end we
really were 3 Swedish people left so we could speak in Swedish. And that of course is our native language, that made it
perhaps easier to communicate. We were writing in English and talking in Swedish. It would have been bizzar if we were
talking English to each other. But perhaps, I mean if there was a fourth person there, sometimes the facilitator was
participating and our discussions were in English.” F6

23. Cross-boundary learning
through culture and language
… as exclusion
“I find it useful to learn from other people's experiences. The international nature. I think it's useful, I
think it was, it was useful to share those experiences, um, but I think sometimes the language barrier,
like there was a lack of confidence from some members of the group, which was fine in some aspects,
um, but meant that in discussions it felt like the UK people tended to take over. Not because they, you
know, they wanted to, but I always got the impression it was, like a lack of confidence, and, to be honest
I would probably find it quite hard if I had to do it in a foreign language and keep up with the following a
conversation, to be able to do that.” F2
“I felt a little bit anxiety, because I have 1 year, 2 years my English I can understand very well but I don’t
use it. I had a long time to use my English. So the language it was problem for me. But I find it a
challenge to make it better. […]I didn't feel the confidence about my writing skills. So I read it [the
information] and I read it again. I couldn’t manage the time. I couldn’t realise how many hours I could
use for a specific section because, I was trying to read and read again my texts. And I lost, I was losing a
lot of time during this process. […] I didn’t participate in a group, because I didn’t feel confident about
the language and I felt a little bit, I felt the pressure I didn’t-, I wanted to have a little time to adjust in
the community and it was in the last week I feel more confident to communicate, to react with others.
But it was the last week.” C10

24. Open learning as a collaborative
design
… empowering
… enabling
… constraining
Open learning as a facilitated
experience
… facilitative and supportive
… lacking direction and
instruction
… controlling
Open learning as course
planning
… organisation aided
participation
… organisation was challenging
for participation
Open learning as resource- and
activity-based
… helpful
… challenging
POOL1:Organisation

25. Collaboration as engagement in
learning
… immersive
… dipping in
Collaboration as shared product
creation
… satisfaction with group
product
… dissatisfaction with group
product
Collaboration as social
interaction
… valuing each others’ presence
… missing each other’s presence
… disapproving of others’ actions
or behaviour
POOL1:Organisation

26. Research design
Case 1
FDOL132
(2013)
(n=19)
Case 2
#creativeHE
(2015)
(n=14)
Initial survey, 19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey, 11 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
Pool 1 Organisaton
4 categories of description
Pool 2 Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 3 Cross-Boundaries
4 categories of description
Outcome space – to create
Collaborative learning framework – to create
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)

27. Research questions Expected Contribution to knowledge
RQ1: How are open cross-institutional
academic development courses experienced
that have been designed to provide
opportunities for collaborative learning?
RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-
institutional academic development courses
influence learners' experience and how?
RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from
research questions 1 and 2, what are the key
features of a collaborative design
framework for open online cross-
institutional academic development
provision?
Recommendations and guidance on how
collaborative learning can work in open
online cross-institutional academic
development contexts. Outcome linked to
RQ1.
Refinement of explanations of pedagogical
models and frameworks used in open
courses in the context of cross-institutional
collaborative learning linked to academic
development. Outcome linked to RQ2.
Development of a collaborative learning
framework and guidance on how this could
be used, adapted and implemented in cross-
institutional academic development
provision. Outcome linked to RQ3.

28. Is this
really the
answer?

29. http://www.wiziq.com/teachblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/shutterstock_193471262.jpg
Please share your comments & observations

30. References
Bamber, V. (2009) Framing Development: Concepts, Factors and Challenges in CPD
Frameworks for Academics, in: Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2009, pp. 4-25.
British Council (2015) Connecting Universities: Future models of higher education. Analysing innovative models for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka An Economist Intelligence
Unit report produced for the British Council, January 2015, available at http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/new_university_models_jan2015_print.pdf
Cape Town Meeting Participants (2008) “The Cape Town Open Education Declaration,” online], available from: http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H. & Narayan, V. (2014) Riding the wave of BYOD: developing a framework for creative pedagogies, in: Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 22, 2014, pp. 1-14.
Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: Voices from Below, EdD thesis, University of Lincoln, available at http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-
Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf
European Commission (2015) Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
New priorities for European cooperation in education and training, Brussels: European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/et-2020-draft-joint-report-408-2015_en.pdf
European Commission (2013) High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher
education institutions, European Union, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/modernisation_en.pdf
Fontana, A. & Frey, JH. (1994). "Interviewing the art of science" in NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 361-376.
HEFCE (2011) Collaborate to compete – Seizing the opportunity of online learning for UK higher education. available at: http://bit.ly/gZIoBB
King, H. (2004) Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: what do academics do?, in: Educational Developments, Issue 5.4, Dec. 2004, pp. 1-5, available at
http://www.seda.ac.uk/resources/files/publications_25_Educational%20Dev%205.4.pdf
Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10, pp. 177-200.
Nerantzi, C. (2011) Freeing education within and beyond academic development. In: Greener, S. and Rospigliosi, A. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on e-Learning, Brighton Business School,
University of Brighton, 10-11 November, pp. 558-566, Academic Conferences International.
NMC Higher Education Edition (2015), available at http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks: California: Sage.
Smyth, K., Vlachopoulos, P., Walker, D., Wheeler, A. (2013). Cross-Institutional development of an online open course for educators: confronting current challenges and imagining future possibilities. In
Carter, H, Gosper M. and Hedberg, J. (eds.), Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney. (pp.826-829)
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
The Scottish Open Declaration (2015), available at http://declaration.openscot.net/
The Wales Open Education Declaration of Intend (2013), available at http://www.oerwales.ac.uk/?page_id=4

31. “Developing a collaborative learning design
framework for open cross-institutional-boundary
academic development courses”
Exploring learner experiences in open cross-institutional and cross-boundary
professional development courses in higher education,
a Phd project work-in-progress
Chrissi Nerantzi, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom, @chrissinerantzi
trip funded by