The document summarizes a study on open educational practices (OEP) in higher education. It finds that while some academic staff use OEP, many perceive risks that discourage use. Open educators share four dimensions: balancing privacy and openness, developing digital literacies, valuing social learning, and challenging traditional teaching roles. Higher education institutions should support staff capacity building in these areas through open education strategies and policies that consider individual needs alongside institutional benefits.

1. pen
Choosing
Image: CC0 by Nadine Shaabana
Catherine Cronin  @catherinecronin  NUI Galway
#OEGlobal and #GO_GN  Cape Town  8th March 2017

2. Open education is a tool
for social change.
Santos, A.I., Punie, Y., & Muñoz, J.C. (2016)
Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions
“

3. 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

4. Openness and praxis:
Exploring the use of
open educational practices (OEP)
in higher education
study title

5. 1. In what ways do academic staff use
open educational practices (OEP)?
2. Why do/don’t academic staff use OEP?
3. What practices, values, and/or strategies are
shared by open educators, if any?
4. How do open educators and students interact in
open online spaces, and how do they enact and
negotiate their digital identities?
research questions

6. 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
Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk

7. • Open educational practices (OEP)
(Beetham, et al., 2012; Ehlers, 2011; Hodgkinson-Williams, 2009)
• Open teaching
(Couros, 2010; Couros & Hildebrandt, 2016)
• Open pedagogy
(DeRosa & Robison, 2015; Hegarty, 2015; Weller, 2014)
• Open scholarship
(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012b; Weller, 2011)
• Networked participatory scholarship
(Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012a; Stewart, 2015)
• Critical (digital) pedagogy
(Farrow, 2016; Rosen & Smale, 2015; Stommel, 2014)
OEP and related concepts

8. collaborative practices that include the creation, use
and reuse of OER and pedagogical practices
employing participatory technologies and social
networks for interaction, peer-learning, knowledge
creation & sharing, and empowerment of
learners.
definition for my study
Open Educational Practices (OEP)

9. 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
Image: CC BY-SA 2.0 Marcel Oosterwijk

10. Image: CC0 photo by Saksham Gangwar
methodology
 Approach: qualitative / interpretive / critical
 Method: constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014)
 Setting: one HEI in Ireland without open education policies/culture
 Participants: 19 members of academic staff, varied by discipline,
employment status, and approach to openness

11. 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 for teaching)
Well-developed open
digital identity
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)
Valuing privacy &
openness; balance
Accepting porosity across
boundaries
increasing openness

12. • Many academic staff perceive potential risks
(for themselves & their students) in using OEP;
some perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks
• A minority of participants (8 of 19) used OEP
• 2 levels of ‘using OEP’: (i) being open, (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

13. 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

14. “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)

15. “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)

16. Balancing privacy & openness
Image: CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks

17. “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)

18. 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

19. Use of OEP is...
 Complex
 Personal
 Contextual
 Continuously negotiated

20. using
OER
using
OEP
e.g. Wiley, 2015
emergent practice
in this study

21. We must rebuild institutions that value humans’
minds and lives and integrity and safety.
Audrey Watters (2017)
“
Image: CC BY-NC 2.0 carnagenyc

22. #1. Separate consideration of Individual and
Institutional openness
HEIs require open education strategies and policies that
recognise the benefits, risks, and complexities of openness
for individuals (students & staff) as well as the institution.
#2. Higher education is open education
Daily, academic staff & students negotiate how to teach and
learn in an increasingly open, networked, and participatory
culture, e.g. deciding whether/how to combine informal &
formal learning practices, identities, and networks...
“navigating the marvellous”.
Conclusions

23. Balancing
privacy and openness
Developing
digital literacies
Valuing
social learning
Challenging traditional
teaching role expectations
HE institutions should work broadly and collaboratively to
build and support academic staff capacity in 3 key areas:
1. Digital literacies/capabilities
2. Navigating tensions between
privacy & openness
3. Reflecting on our roles as
educators & researchers in
increasingly networked
participatory culture

24. Le spectre de la rose Jerome Robbins Dance Division, NYPL
To hope is to give
yourself to the future,
and that commitment
to the future
makes the present
inhabitable.
Rebecca Solnit (2004)
Hope in the Dark
“

25. Le spectre de la rose Jerome Robbins Dance Division, NYPL
Thank You!
@catherinecronin
slideshare.net/cicronin
bit.ly/cronin-oeglobal

26. 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.
Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos
(Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Athabasca University Press.
Couros, A. & Hildebrandt, K. (2016). Designing for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos, Emergence
and Innovation in Digital Learning. Athabasca University Press.
Cox, G. & Trotter, H. (2016). Institutional culture and OER policy: How structure, culture, and agency mediate
OER policy potential in South African universities. IRRODL, 17(5).
Czerniewicz, L. (2015). Confronting inequitable power dynamics of global knowledge production and
exchange. Water Wheel 14(5), 26-28.
DeRosa, R. & Robison, S. (2015, November 9). Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational
resources. EDUCAUSE Review.
Ehlers, U-D. (2011). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices.
Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2).
Farrow, R. (2016). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology.
Geser, G. (2007). Open educational practices and resources: OLCOS Roadmap, 2012.
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.
Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational
Technology. (July/August).
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. & Gray, E. (2009). Degrees of Openness: The emergence of open educational
resources at the University of Cape Town. IJEDICT, 5(5).
References (1 of 2)

27. Rosen, J. R. & Smale, M. A. (2015). Open digital pedagogy = Critical pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Santos, A.I., Punie, Y. & Muñoz, J.C. (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher
Education Institutions. JRC Science For Policy Report.
Selwyn, N. & Facer, K. (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and
connections. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solnit, R. (2004). Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. New York: Nation Books.
Stewart, B. (2015). In abundance: Networked participatory practices as scholarship. IRRODL, 16(3).
Stommel, J. (2014, November 18). Critical digital pedagogy: a definition. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.),
Emerging technologies in distance education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. IRRODL, 13(4).
Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural
pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2).
Watters, A. (2014, November 16). From “open” to justice. Hack Education blog.
Watters, A. (2017, February 2). Ed-tech in a time of Trump. 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.
Wiley, D. (2015). Reflections on open education and the path forward. Iterating toward openness blog.
References (2 of 2)