Presentation by Cecilia Goria & Angelos Konstantinidis at EUROCALL2017, Southampton, UK

1. Implementing openness in a
private online course: theory,
practice, and reflections
Dr. Cecilia Goria
University of Nottingham, UK
Email: Cecilia.Goria@nottingham.ac.uk
Twitter: @CeciliaGoria
Angelos Konstantinidis
University of Nottingham, UK
Email: angelos.konstantinidis@nottingham.ac.uk
Twitter: @angelntini
EUROCALL 2017 ‘CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions’
1/21

2. Aim of the presentation
• Compatibility between open pedagogies and private
educational programmes
• Is it possible to integrate elements of openness in a
fee-based course?
2/21

3. Overview of the presentation
1. Aim of the presentation
2. What is openness?
3. From MOOCs to SPOCs
4. Context of our study
5. Pedagogical model implemented in our programme
6. PLEs/PLNs
7. The practice
8. Reflections
9. Implications
10. Conclusion
3/21

4. What is openness?
“An approach to education that
seeks to remove all unnecessary
barriers to learning” (Butcher, 2011)
• Open admissions
• Recognition of prior learning
• Open access
• Open Educational Resources
• Open curricula
• Open connections
• Open accreditation
• Open teaching
• Open dialogue
“Not only are there different aspects of
openness, but it may be that some are
mutually exclusive with others, or… that
prioritising some means less emphasis
on others” (Weller, 2014)
Photocredit:YJ-Leehttps://tinyurl.com/y87jtnoh
4/21

5. From MOOCs to SPOCs
Massive
Open
Online
Course
Small
Private
Online
Course
Is loss of openness the inevitable by-product of going
small and private?
Openness = MOOCs (?)
Image source: https://blog.sowiso.nl/benefits-spocs-small-private-online-courses/#.WZhaZpMjFwc
5/21

6. Context of our study
Professional Development
Programme
Entirely online, 2 year
part-time
For language teachers who
wish to explore the use of
technologies to update
their professional role, as
a career move or personal
interest.
6/21

7. Pedagogical design guidelines
(based on Toohey’s 1999 typology)
The cognitive approach - influenced by the theory of
social constructivism (Piaget 1926; Vygotsky 1978).
• personal construction of knowledge
• Sharing and collaborating
• focus on the depth of content rather than quantity
• resources for independent investigation
• self and peer assessment
The teacher's role is to elicit and facilitate levels of
analysis, which the learners would not have reached
on their own.
Learner’s contribution, participation, ownership of
learning.
The experiential approach promotes:
• personally relevant learning
• mutual teacher-student respect, collaboration,
support and openness
The teacher's role is to:
• assist planning
• facilitate group-work
• offer guidance while students determine their
own learning goals
• be involved in the planning of the unit
Learner’s experience, ownership of learning.
Participatory pedagogy – Community 7/21

8. A “shift from instructor or institution-controlled teaching to one of greater
control by the learner” (Siemens 2008) for which participatory technologies,
or Web 2.0, are one of the driving forces.
“A participatory pedagogy is one that does not fully define all curricular
needs in advance of interacting with learners. Learners are able to
contribute to existing curricula.” (ibid)
“[…] an approach to learning focusing on student centered learning,
emphasizing the value of enabling learners to be part of creating both
content and structure.” (Andersen & Ponti 2014)
Participatory pedagogy
8/21

9. Pedagogical model (Konstantinidis & Goria, 2016)
Core elements in an online community of
inquiry in closed educational settings
(Community of Inquiry model; Garrison et
al., 1999):
• Social presence
• Teaching presence
• Cognitive presence
Fundamental aspects of online experience
in a social network (Community Indicators
Framework; Galley et al., 2014):
• Cohesion
• Creativity
• Identity
• Participation
It takes into
account the
wider web
and the
community
of users
Our model
supports
educational
experiences
online in a
private
course
9/21

10. PLEs ≠ PLNs
PLEs: environments within which learning takes place and the tools or
technologies utilized within that space.
PLNs: the key feature is the human factor, that is people and the interactions
between them.
PLEs & PLNs
PLEs provide the structure - space and technologies - for developing
people’s PLNs and communities; they “[…] promote connections:
between one learner and the other learners, between learners and
tutors, between a learning community and its resources” (Steeples &
Jones 2002:2 quoted in Dexler 2010:370).
10/21

11. Phase 1: create their own personal learning space by “self
generating content and managing this content for
personal productivity or organisational e-learning tasks
such as creating bookmarks, media resources, and
personal journals and calendars.” (Dabbagh and Kitsantas
2011:6)
• Regular reflection on and
graphical representation
of students’ learning
spaces and connections.
• Categorization of their
tools.
• Positioning and
repositioning of
themselves inside the
PLEs/PLNs as users as well
as contributors.
Phase 2: social media to engage in collaboration and
sharing with the learning community, extending the
personal learning space to a social learning space.
Phase 3: social media to reflect, synthesize and analyse
the information gathered in Phases 1 and 2, customizing
and personalizing it around their own learning goals.
Step 4: social media “to go public” - make their PLE not
only social, but social beyond the boundaries of the
programme.
Phases and Step
11/21

12. Through PLEs/PLNs, the CoI becomes wider, it extends beyond the programme,
to bring in our students’ global connections.
The result is an ongoing exchange of learning experiences across the
boundaries of the programme.
open connections
open teaching
open curricula
open dialogue
open assignments
open content-use of OER
Through PLEs/PLNs openness is fostered as:
PLEs (and we add PLNs) “[…] include and bring together all learning, including
informal learning, workplace learning, learning from the home, learning driven by
problem solving and learning motivated by personal interest as well as learning
through engagement in formal educational programmes.” (Atwell 2007:2)
12/21

13. • Wikis for notes sharing
• Blogs for personal
reflection & for
engagement with a
wider audience
• Twitter for exchanges
outside the programme
• A Facebook group for
strengthening the sense
of community across
cohorts
• KakaoTalk for informal
chatting

14. • A Virtual World for
tutorials and informal
gathering
• A social bookmarking
tool (Diigo) and
Mendeley for organising
bibliography
• Popplet and Padlet for
collaborative
brainstorming
• Google tools for creating
and sharing learner-
generated content

15. Reflections
PLEs/PLNs has functioned as the vehicle to
ensure that the social dimension of our model
is not confined within the context of the
programme
Through PLEs /PLNs our community of
learners has become able to incorporate our
students’ personal and professional
relations and networks
Our community has benefited from the
shared knowledge and experiences brought
in by such an extension
Open connections
Open teaching
Open curricula
15/21

16. Reflections
PLEs/PLNs has helped to increase
transparency in assignments, to encourage
creativity, to facilitate tutor as well as peer-
to-peer feedback, and support use of OER
Open dialogue
Open assignments
Open content-use of OER
16/21

17. Implications
Social presence as complex construct
Social presence as more open construct
shared identity, i.e. the community,
towards a common cause, i.e.
academic achievement and
professional development
(Wenger-Trayner 2011)
links, nodes outside the
programme, i.e. the
individuals’ networks
(Wenger-Trayner 2011)
to feed learning experiences in and out of our CoI for the constructions
of knowledge - opening, strengthening and enriching our Community
of Inquiry.
17/21

18. • PLEs/PLNs provide the space for openness within
the private context of our MA programme
• PLEs/PLNs provide the instruments for
implementing:
• Open connections
• Open curricula
• Open teaching
Is loss of openness the inevitable by-product of going
small and private?
Conclusion
• Open dialogue
• Open assignments
• Use of OER
18/21

19. Thank you
Cecilia.Goria@nottingham.ac.uk
@CeciliaGoria
angelos.konstantinidis@nottingham.ac.uk
@angelntini
19/21

20. References
Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2),
234-249.
Arnold, N. & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building.
Internet and Higher Education, 13, 188–196.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning?. eLearning papers, 2(1), 1-8.
Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Vancouver & Paris: COL.
Churchill, D., Wong, W., Law, N., Salter, D., & Tai, B. (2009). Social Bookmarking–Repository–Networking: Possibilities for Support of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education. Serials Review, 35(3), 142-48.
Dabbagh N. & Kitsantas A. (2012) Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting
formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15, pp. 3–8
Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student
autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385
Galley, R., Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2014). Community indicators: a framework for observing and supporting community activity on Cloudworks.
Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680965
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Konstantinidis, A., & Goria, C. (2016). Cultivating a community of learners in a distance learning postgraduate course for language professionals. In
Salomi Papadima-Sophocleous, Linda Bradley, Sylvie Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture – short papers from EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 230-
236). Dublin Ireland: Research-publishing.net.
20/21

21. References
Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329-347. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9115-y
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0
era. Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2007. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/46128/
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy
using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company
Redecker C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A. & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: the impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training
in Europe. European Commission Joint Research Center. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55629.pdf
Secker, J., & Price, G. (2007). Libraries, Social Software and Distance Learners: Blog it, Tag it, Share it!. New Review of Information Networking, 13(1),
39-52. doi:10.1080/13614570701754536
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning.
http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm
Toohey, S. (1999). Beliefs, values and ideologies in course design. In Designing courses for higher education (pp. 44-69). Buckingham: SRHE & OUP.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger-Trayner (2011) http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/communities-versus-networks/
Weller, M. (2014). The Battle For Open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bam
21/21