The Role of a Learning Technologist in Transforming Digital Learning Practice...Chrissi Nerantzi
18 January 2018, London, invited contribution to the Inside Government event Embracing Technology Enhance Learning in Higher Education
https://chrissinerantzi.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/inside-government-event-18-1-18/
Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in c...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document discusses opening up higher education through cross-boundary collaborative open learning. It presents a phenomenographic study of two open online courses involving academics from different institutions. Interviews and surveys examined how participants experienced these cross-institutional courses and which characteristics most influenced their experiences. The study developed a framework for open learning consisting of learner engagement patterns, needs, and design considerations. The framework aims to support new approaches to academic development and continuing professional development that are cross-institutional, collaborative, and open.
The developer's real new clothes by Chrissi Nerantzi, for 21st annual SEDA Co...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document outlines Chrissi Nerantzi's PhD research exploring cross-boundary learning in open online courses. The research involved two case studies of open cross-institutional courses for academic development. Data was collected through surveys and interviews with participants and analyzed using phenomenography to identify categories of description. The findings were used to develop a proposed cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development. The framework is intended to inform the design of open courses and engagement patterns to support learning with others across institutional boundaries.
Co-imagineering the future university APT17 4 July 2017Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a workshop on co-imagining the future university held at Greenwich University. The workshop was divided into starter, main course, and dessert sections. In the starter, participants co-imagined future universities in small groups by developing brands, logos, and models. The main course presented findings from a study on open educational practices and boundary crossing. It discussed opportunities and challenges of boundary crossing. The dessert had participants revisit their models and connect ideas to their practice. The workshop concluded by discussing a potential new model for academic development and higher education based on cross-boundary communities.
A ticket for a cross-boundary higher education system. Just a dream? PhD studyChrissi Nerantzi
This document describes a study that used a collective case study approach and phenomenography to examine learners' experiences in two open cross-institutional academic development courses designed for collaborative learning. The study aimed to understand learners' experiences, which course characteristics most influenced learners, and develop a collaborative open learning framework. Data collection methods included surveys and interviews. Preliminary findings identified categories of description around course experience, boundary crossing, and collaboration. The outcome space addressed the research questions and informed a proposed collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development.
Developing a collaborative learning design framework for open cross-instituti...Chrissi Nerantzi
The document describes a PhD research project that aims to explore learner experiences in open cross-institutional academic development courses through phenomenographic analysis of semi-structured interviews and surveys. The research questions focus on how these courses are experienced by learners, which course characteristics influence learner experience, and identifying features of a collaborative design framework. The methodology section outlines the phenomenographic approach, purposeful sampling strategy, and initial findings from surveys and interviews conducted with participants in two case studies.
About chaos, the big wave, confusion and overcoming loneliness in Openland b...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes Chrissi Nerantzi's presentation on open education at the University of Sussex on March 11, 2014. The presentation discussed three examples of open education initiatives: FDOL, an open professional development course for teachers in higher education developed by academic developers in the UK and Sweden; FLEX, an opportunity for continuing professional development activities and credits tailored to individual priorities at Manchester Metropolitan University; and BYOD4L, a mobile, flexible, collaborative open course. Nerantzi reflected on the experiences and preliminary findings from these initiatives, including challenges around time commitment and group work. She concluded by considering next steps, such as offering a new open cross-institutional course and research on the facilitators' experience in BY
“I would probably find it quite hard if I had to do it in a foreign language” Chrissi Nerantzi
My PhD research work-in-progress... contribution for Sunday the 10 April 2016 for the event of the Global OER Graduate Network in Krakow, Poland as part of the OEGlobal
The Role of a Learning Technologist in Transforming Digital Learning Practice...Chrissi Nerantzi
18 January 2018, London, invited contribution to the Inside Government event Embracing Technology Enhance Learning in Higher Education
https://chrissinerantzi.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/inside-government-event-18-1-18/
Opening-up the HE box through cross-boundary collaborative open learning in c...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document discusses opening up higher education through cross-boundary collaborative open learning. It presents a phenomenographic study of two open online courses involving academics from different institutions. Interviews and surveys examined how participants experienced these cross-institutional courses and which characteristics most influenced their experiences. The study developed a framework for open learning consisting of learner engagement patterns, needs, and design considerations. The framework aims to support new approaches to academic development and continuing professional development that are cross-institutional, collaborative, and open.
The developer's real new clothes by Chrissi Nerantzi, for 21st annual SEDA Co...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document outlines Chrissi Nerantzi's PhD research exploring cross-boundary learning in open online courses. The research involved two case studies of open cross-institutional courses for academic development. Data was collected through surveys and interviews with participants and analyzed using phenomenography to identify categories of description. The findings were used to develop a proposed cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development. The framework is intended to inform the design of open courses and engagement patterns to support learning with others across institutional boundaries.
Co-imagineering the future university APT17 4 July 2017Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a workshop on co-imagining the future university held at Greenwich University. The workshop was divided into starter, main course, and dessert sections. In the starter, participants co-imagined future universities in small groups by developing brands, logos, and models. The main course presented findings from a study on open educational practices and boundary crossing. It discussed opportunities and challenges of boundary crossing. The dessert had participants revisit their models and connect ideas to their practice. The workshop concluded by discussing a potential new model for academic development and higher education based on cross-boundary communities.
A ticket for a cross-boundary higher education system. Just a dream? PhD studyChrissi Nerantzi
This document describes a study that used a collective case study approach and phenomenography to examine learners' experiences in two open cross-institutional academic development courses designed for collaborative learning. The study aimed to understand learners' experiences, which course characteristics most influenced learners, and develop a collaborative open learning framework. Data collection methods included surveys and interviews. Preliminary findings identified categories of description around course experience, boundary crossing, and collaboration. The outcome space addressed the research questions and informed a proposed collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development.
Developing a collaborative learning design framework for open cross-instituti...Chrissi Nerantzi
The document describes a PhD research project that aims to explore learner experiences in open cross-institutional academic development courses through phenomenographic analysis of semi-structured interviews and surveys. The research questions focus on how these courses are experienced by learners, which course characteristics influence learner experience, and identifying features of a collaborative design framework. The methodology section outlines the phenomenographic approach, purposeful sampling strategy, and initial findings from surveys and interviews conducted with participants in two case studies.
About chaos, the big wave, confusion and overcoming loneliness in Openland b...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes Chrissi Nerantzi's presentation on open education at the University of Sussex on March 11, 2014. The presentation discussed three examples of open education initiatives: FDOL, an open professional development course for teachers in higher education developed by academic developers in the UK and Sweden; FLEX, an opportunity for continuing professional development activities and credits tailored to individual priorities at Manchester Metropolitan University; and BYOD4L, a mobile, flexible, collaborative open course. Nerantzi reflected on the experiences and preliminary findings from these initiatives, including challenges around time commitment and group work. She concluded by considering next steps, such as offering a new open cross-institutional course and research on the facilitators' experience in BY
“I would probably find it quite hard if I had to do it in a foreign language” Chrissi Nerantzi
My PhD research work-in-progress... contribution for Sunday the 10 April 2016 for the event of the Global OER Graduate Network in Krakow, Poland as part of the OEGlobal
"It is cool learning together" Is it? HEA Conference Contribution, 2-3 July 2014Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a presentation given by Chrissi Nerantzi exploring collaborative learning in an open professional development course for teachers in higher education called FDOL. The presentation discussed insights from learners in the FDOL course, benefits and challenges of collaborative learning. It provided an overview of the FDOL course structure and findings from initial surveys of participants that highlighted values of collaboration, flexibility and peer learning. Preliminary thematic analysis of interview data with FDOL participants revealed themes of commitment, cultural diversity, challenges of time management and technology, and value of small group work and facilitator support.
Just a buzz by Chrissi Nerantzi and Neil Withnell poster presentation for the...Chrissi Nerantzi
This poster summarizes research on an open online course called FDOL132 for the professional development of teachers in higher education. A PhD study used FDOL132 as a case study to investigate learners' experiences in the course. Preliminary findings from surveys and interviews found that participants valued group work but found it challenging. They appreciated working with colleagues from different disciplines and countries but faced barriers like language and commitment levels. The research aims to develop a framework for collaborative learning in open cross-institutional courses.
PGR Conference Edinburgh Napier: PhD year 1: my first baby steps by Chrissi N...Chrissi Nerantzi
Developing a flexible collaborative learning framework for open cross-institutional Academic Development courses
at postgraduate level
Postgraduate Research Conference, Edinburgh Napier University 3 April 2014
I felt I knew everybody, by Chrissi Nerantzi (APT Conference, University of G...Chrissi Nerantzi
Learner experiences in an open cross-institutional CPD course for teachers in HE
APT Conference: Connected Learning in an Open World, University of Greenwich, 8 July 2014
The FDOL journey so far presented at NW ALT SIG 12 Dec 13 with Neil WithnellChrissi Nerantzi
This document provides an overview of the Flexible, Distance and Online Learning (FDOL) open courses #FDOL131, #FDOL132 and plans for #FDOL141.
#FDOL131 had 80 participants in Problem-Based Learning groups, while #FDOL132 had 107 registrations and groups of 6-8 participants each. Both courses used a simple COOL FISh approach for autonomous and collaborative learning. Participant feedback highlighted the value of community, facilitator support, and applying skills to practice.
#FDOL141 is planned to start in February 2014 with streamlined COOL FISh activities, 10 volunteer facilitators, and a course leader role. It aims to further support
This document provides an overview of the #FDOL131 open online course on flexible, distance and online learning. The course used problem-based learning and was facilitated by educators from the University of Salford and Karolinska Institutet. It was intended for teachers and professionals who support learning in higher education. The course was divided into 6 units over 10 weeks and used freely available technologies and the COOL FISh framework to support collaborative group work and sharing of findings. Participation varied throughout the course with around 20% completing all units. Feedback from participants highlighted the importance of community, synchronous online events, and tutor support for engagement and learning in the online problem-based format.
Presented by James Little (freelance and University of Sheffield) at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
Just a buzz: Exploring collaborative learning in an open course for professio...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes research on an open online course called FDOL132 for the professional development of teachers in higher education. A survey of participants found that the majority valued group work, feedback, and recognition for their studies. Interviews revealed that participants found groups challenging due to language barriers and commitment levels but appreciated learning from colleagues internationally. Time constraints were a significant challenge. Overall, participants reported a valuable learning experience from the course and examples of applying what they learned in practice, though facilitators' active engagement and support was important for participation.
Developing staff and student feedback literacy in partnershipDavid Carless
The document discusses developing feedback literacy among both teachers and students. It defines feedback as information that is provided through interactions to support learning. Both teachers and students need to understand feedback and know how to use it for improvement. The document provides an example of designing feedback in a large class and discusses developing teacher feedback literacy through informal sharing and research projects. It emphasizes developing student feedback literacy and the importance of partnership between teachers and students in feedback processes.
What does educators' engagement with MOOC discussions look like?FutureLearn FLAN
Presented by Fereshte Goshtasbpour of the University of Leeds at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
High vs. Low Collaboration Courses: Impact on Learning Presence, Community...David Wicks
Researchers demonstrated a relationship between learning presence and social engagement; however, research in this area is limited. For example, no distinctions are made as to what role faculty, students, or technology might play in facilitating social engagement. In general, researchers revealed that students' ability to self-regulate leads to more focused attention, time on-task, and in turn, these skills could lead to better learning. Given the need for more theoretical work in the area, as well as the potential practical benefits from the use of these pedagogical strategies, we sought to compare the difference between high versus low-collaboration groups on assignments, as well as courses in general. Differences in groups were measured using student grades, peer evaluation, pre and post test, and the community of inquiry framework. In addition, learning presence and social network analysis were used to assess a high-collaboration assignment.
In the current study, the researchers explored how collaborative technologies, specifically Google Docs and Google Hangouts, may be used to impact the level of learning presence (forethought and planning, performance, and reflection) students demonstrate while participating in a small group project. Participants were graduate education students in two randomly assigned sections of the same online course. The course content focused on basic educational psychology for students seeking initial teaching certification. The experimental section utilized a high-collaboration project (e.g., small group, Google Hangouts and Docs) to enhance understanding of course content while the comparison, control section employed a low-collaboration project (e.g., partner activity, Word documents) to enhance understanding of course content. Participants completed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Survey at the end of the term which measured their perceived level of teaching, social, and cognitive presence during the course. Quantitative content analysis was used to explore occurrences of learning presence in the high-collaboration group. *Finally, we employed social network analysis (SNA) as a method of inquiry to analyze student interaction data with the high-collaboration group. SNA is used to explain relationships depicted by information flow and its influence from participants' interactions. Scholars have used SNA in the online learning context to understand individual and group dimensions of interactions.
*Social Network Analysis (SNA) will not be addressed in this presentation but will be included in the manuscript.
Making history in the digital age apt2014 presentation v3Vicki Dale
Design and evaluation of a 'Making history' group project for history undergraduates at UCL. Students used Mahara to showcase outcomes of research-based learning in year 1. Presented at APT2014, Greenwich, July 2014.
This document discusses opening up higher education through cross-boundary collaborative open learning. It presents a phenomenographic study of two open online courses involving academics from different institutions. Interviews and surveys examined how participants experienced these cross-institutional courses and which characteristics most influenced their experiences. The study developed a framework for open learning consisting of learner engagement patterns, needs, and design considerations. The framework aims to support new approaches to academic development and continuing professional development that are cross-institutional, collaborative, and open.
Feedback literacy as a key to ongoing improvementDavid Carless
This document summarizes a presentation given by Professor David Carless from the University of Hong Kong on feedback literacy as key to ongoing improvement. The presentation discusses conceptualizing feedback as information, in relation to goals, and as action for learners to improve. It defines feedback literacy and its components. It also provides examples of using feedback for course enhancement, such as mid-semester feedback and closing feedback loops, and technology-enabled feedback strategies like online quizzes and learning analytics. The presentation recommends managing timing of feedback and striving to close feedback loops to develop students' feedback literacy.
1) The document discusses scholarship of and for teaching and learning at the Open University. It outlines 5 types of scholarship and criteria for scholarship projects, including externality, peer review, usability, alignment with university strategy, and viability.
2) Key criteria for scholarship projects include being subject to peer review, having outcomes that are usable by others, and making a significant contribution to the Open University's mission as a world leader in online education.
3) The document provides guidance on developing external representation, peer review, evidence collection, dissemination of results, and ensuring scholarship alignment and viability.
A paper presented at the 2012 Design, Development and Research conference. A student’s experience in a tertiary programme should develop the professional skills needed after graduation as well as equip students with necessary skills to navigate real world situations. In the design field students work and learn in an educational design studio which mirrors the working model of professional design industries. Design students’ learning experiences can be investigated from both an external point of view, by establishing the level of student involvement, as well as from an internal point of view through the level of engagement encouraged by the method of teaching and learning. Student involvement, as explored in this paper relates to the framework develop by Astin (1984) in which he states: “Quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” If a student is involved they stand to gain more from the educational experience. This experience could further be enhanced by developing an engaging learning situation. The term ‘engagement theory’, as explored by Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999), is grounded in technology based education but can be applied to most learning environments : “The fundamental idea underpinning engagement theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks”. The Schlechty Centre (2009) describes students who are engaged by their learning environment as able to learn at high levels with a clear and comprehensive understanding of what is being learnt, as well as being able to retain what they have learnt and that they are able to apply this new knowledge to different contexts . The three characteristics of an engaged learning experience are collaboration, project orientated assessment and authentic (real-world) learning . These characteristics are similar to practical studio based education practices which focus on problem based projects, grounded in real world contexts.
This paper investigates the level of student involvement of Industrial Design 3 students as well as whether engagement is encouraged within the theoretical subjects associated with this programme. To establish the level of student involvement students completed the 2012 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and findings are compared to corresponding data from America, Europe and Australia. The level of engagement experienced by third year Industrial Design students in the theoretical subject was documented through video and photographic ethnography. The aim of the research is to establish whether design students, with varying levels of student involvement, would have a more engaged learning experience in theoretical subjects if the learning experience was collaborative, project orientated and based in a real world context.
Teaching blended learning through a blended community of inquirystefanstenbom
The document outlines an agenda for a course on blended learning that brings together faculty in Sweden to foster a community of inquiry. The course aims to review principles of blended teaching and design through a blended format that incorporates both face-to-face and online elements. The community of inquiry framework structures the course, focusing on teaching, social, and cognitive presences to support purposeful critical inquiry among participants.
"It is cool learning together" Is it? HEA Conference Contribution, 2-3 July 2014Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a presentation given by Chrissi Nerantzi exploring collaborative learning in an open professional development course for teachers in higher education called FDOL. The presentation discussed insights from learners in the FDOL course, benefits and challenges of collaborative learning. It provided an overview of the FDOL course structure and findings from initial surveys of participants that highlighted values of collaboration, flexibility and peer learning. Preliminary thematic analysis of interview data with FDOL participants revealed themes of commitment, cultural diversity, challenges of time management and technology, and value of small group work and facilitator support.
Just a buzz by Chrissi Nerantzi and Neil Withnell poster presentation for the...Chrissi Nerantzi
This poster summarizes research on an open online course called FDOL132 for the professional development of teachers in higher education. A PhD study used FDOL132 as a case study to investigate learners' experiences in the course. Preliminary findings from surveys and interviews found that participants valued group work but found it challenging. They appreciated working with colleagues from different disciplines and countries but faced barriers like language and commitment levels. The research aims to develop a framework for collaborative learning in open cross-institutional courses.
PGR Conference Edinburgh Napier: PhD year 1: my first baby steps by Chrissi N...Chrissi Nerantzi
Developing a flexible collaborative learning framework for open cross-institutional Academic Development courses
at postgraduate level
Postgraduate Research Conference, Edinburgh Napier University 3 April 2014
I felt I knew everybody, by Chrissi Nerantzi (APT Conference, University of G...Chrissi Nerantzi
Learner experiences in an open cross-institutional CPD course for teachers in HE
APT Conference: Connected Learning in an Open World, University of Greenwich, 8 July 2014
The FDOL journey so far presented at NW ALT SIG 12 Dec 13 with Neil WithnellChrissi Nerantzi
This document provides an overview of the Flexible, Distance and Online Learning (FDOL) open courses #FDOL131, #FDOL132 and plans for #FDOL141.
#FDOL131 had 80 participants in Problem-Based Learning groups, while #FDOL132 had 107 registrations and groups of 6-8 participants each. Both courses used a simple COOL FISh approach for autonomous and collaborative learning. Participant feedback highlighted the value of community, facilitator support, and applying skills to practice.
#FDOL141 is planned to start in February 2014 with streamlined COOL FISh activities, 10 volunteer facilitators, and a course leader role. It aims to further support
This document provides an overview of the #FDOL131 open online course on flexible, distance and online learning. The course used problem-based learning and was facilitated by educators from the University of Salford and Karolinska Institutet. It was intended for teachers and professionals who support learning in higher education. The course was divided into 6 units over 10 weeks and used freely available technologies and the COOL FISh framework to support collaborative group work and sharing of findings. Participation varied throughout the course with around 20% completing all units. Feedback from participants highlighted the importance of community, synchronous online events, and tutor support for engagement and learning in the online problem-based format.
Presented by James Little (freelance and University of Sheffield) at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
Just a buzz: Exploring collaborative learning in an open course for professio...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes research on an open online course called FDOL132 for the professional development of teachers in higher education. A survey of participants found that the majority valued group work, feedback, and recognition for their studies. Interviews revealed that participants found groups challenging due to language barriers and commitment levels but appreciated learning from colleagues internationally. Time constraints were a significant challenge. Overall, participants reported a valuable learning experience from the course and examples of applying what they learned in practice, though facilitators' active engagement and support was important for participation.
Developing staff and student feedback literacy in partnershipDavid Carless
The document discusses developing feedback literacy among both teachers and students. It defines feedback as information that is provided through interactions to support learning. Both teachers and students need to understand feedback and know how to use it for improvement. The document provides an example of designing feedback in a large class and discusses developing teacher feedback literacy through informal sharing and research projects. It emphasizes developing student feedback literacy and the importance of partnership between teachers and students in feedback processes.
What does educators' engagement with MOOC discussions look like?FutureLearn FLAN
Presented by Fereshte Goshtasbpour of the University of Leeds at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
High vs. Low Collaboration Courses: Impact on Learning Presence, Community...David Wicks
Researchers demonstrated a relationship between learning presence and social engagement; however, research in this area is limited. For example, no distinctions are made as to what role faculty, students, or technology might play in facilitating social engagement. In general, researchers revealed that students' ability to self-regulate leads to more focused attention, time on-task, and in turn, these skills could lead to better learning. Given the need for more theoretical work in the area, as well as the potential practical benefits from the use of these pedagogical strategies, we sought to compare the difference between high versus low-collaboration groups on assignments, as well as courses in general. Differences in groups were measured using student grades, peer evaluation, pre and post test, and the community of inquiry framework. In addition, learning presence and social network analysis were used to assess a high-collaboration assignment.
In the current study, the researchers explored how collaborative technologies, specifically Google Docs and Google Hangouts, may be used to impact the level of learning presence (forethought and planning, performance, and reflection) students demonstrate while participating in a small group project. Participants were graduate education students in two randomly assigned sections of the same online course. The course content focused on basic educational psychology for students seeking initial teaching certification. The experimental section utilized a high-collaboration project (e.g., small group, Google Hangouts and Docs) to enhance understanding of course content while the comparison, control section employed a low-collaboration project (e.g., partner activity, Word documents) to enhance understanding of course content. Participants completed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Survey at the end of the term which measured their perceived level of teaching, social, and cognitive presence during the course. Quantitative content analysis was used to explore occurrences of learning presence in the high-collaboration group. *Finally, we employed social network analysis (SNA) as a method of inquiry to analyze student interaction data with the high-collaboration group. SNA is used to explain relationships depicted by information flow and its influence from participants' interactions. Scholars have used SNA in the online learning context to understand individual and group dimensions of interactions.
*Social Network Analysis (SNA) will not be addressed in this presentation but will be included in the manuscript.
Making history in the digital age apt2014 presentation v3Vicki Dale
Design and evaluation of a 'Making history' group project for history undergraduates at UCL. Students used Mahara to showcase outcomes of research-based learning in year 1. Presented at APT2014, Greenwich, July 2014.
This document discusses opening up higher education through cross-boundary collaborative open learning. It presents a phenomenographic study of two open online courses involving academics from different institutions. Interviews and surveys examined how participants experienced these cross-institutional courses and which characteristics most influenced their experiences. The study developed a framework for open learning consisting of learner engagement patterns, needs, and design considerations. The framework aims to support new approaches to academic development and continuing professional development that are cross-institutional, collaborative, and open.
Feedback literacy as a key to ongoing improvementDavid Carless
This document summarizes a presentation given by Professor David Carless from the University of Hong Kong on feedback literacy as key to ongoing improvement. The presentation discusses conceptualizing feedback as information, in relation to goals, and as action for learners to improve. It defines feedback literacy and its components. It also provides examples of using feedback for course enhancement, such as mid-semester feedback and closing feedback loops, and technology-enabled feedback strategies like online quizzes and learning analytics. The presentation recommends managing timing of feedback and striving to close feedback loops to develop students' feedback literacy.
1) The document discusses scholarship of and for teaching and learning at the Open University. It outlines 5 types of scholarship and criteria for scholarship projects, including externality, peer review, usability, alignment with university strategy, and viability.
2) Key criteria for scholarship projects include being subject to peer review, having outcomes that are usable by others, and making a significant contribution to the Open University's mission as a world leader in online education.
3) The document provides guidance on developing external representation, peer review, evidence collection, dissemination of results, and ensuring scholarship alignment and viability.
A paper presented at the 2012 Design, Development and Research conference. A student’s experience in a tertiary programme should develop the professional skills needed after graduation as well as equip students with necessary skills to navigate real world situations. In the design field students work and learn in an educational design studio which mirrors the working model of professional design industries. Design students’ learning experiences can be investigated from both an external point of view, by establishing the level of student involvement, as well as from an internal point of view through the level of engagement encouraged by the method of teaching and learning. Student involvement, as explored in this paper relates to the framework develop by Astin (1984) in which he states: “Quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” If a student is involved they stand to gain more from the educational experience. This experience could further be enhanced by developing an engaging learning situation. The term ‘engagement theory’, as explored by Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999), is grounded in technology based education but can be applied to most learning environments : “The fundamental idea underpinning engagement theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks”. The Schlechty Centre (2009) describes students who are engaged by their learning environment as able to learn at high levels with a clear and comprehensive understanding of what is being learnt, as well as being able to retain what they have learnt and that they are able to apply this new knowledge to different contexts . The three characteristics of an engaged learning experience are collaboration, project orientated assessment and authentic (real-world) learning . These characteristics are similar to practical studio based education practices which focus on problem based projects, grounded in real world contexts.
This paper investigates the level of student involvement of Industrial Design 3 students as well as whether engagement is encouraged within the theoretical subjects associated with this programme. To establish the level of student involvement students completed the 2012 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and findings are compared to corresponding data from America, Europe and Australia. The level of engagement experienced by third year Industrial Design students in the theoretical subject was documented through video and photographic ethnography. The aim of the research is to establish whether design students, with varying levels of student involvement, would have a more engaged learning experience in theoretical subjects if the learning experience was collaborative, project orientated and based in a real world context.
Teaching blended learning through a blended community of inquirystefanstenbom
The document outlines an agenda for a course on blended learning that brings together faculty in Sweden to foster a community of inquiry. The course aims to review principles of blended teaching and design through a blended format that incorporates both face-to-face and online elements. The community of inquiry framework structures the course, focusing on teaching, social, and cognitive presences to support purposeful critical inquiry among participants.
Talis Elevate is a digital tool being piloted at the University of Lincoln and Anglia Ruskin University to support pedagogical development and make learning more visible. It was used by over 200 students across various disciplines at Lincoln and over 1000 students at ARU. The tool allows for discussion, annotation of resources, and analytics of student engagement. Initial findings found high levels of student engagement, improved attainment of distance learners, and insights into student preferences that enabled adjustments to teaching delivery. Challenges included some cohorts being less willing to openly discuss, but successes included facilitated student-student collaboration and co-creation of knowledge.
Portfolios: spaces for reflection, conversation and discoveryChrissi Nerantzi
This document discusses the use of portfolios to support professional development. It begins by outlining how portfolios can be used for initial development through programs like a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice, for continuous development through a flexible CPD program, and for open development by sharing work online. Examples are provided of how portfolios support reflection, feedback conversations, and the collection of evidence around academic CPD. Challenges of portfolios include issues of time and workload, as well as comfort with sharing work openly online. Overall, portfolios are presented as a way to develop reflective skills and habits to support teaching and research growth.
Plenary lecture at 2016 NTU Learning and Teaching Seminar - Students as Partn...Simon Bates
These case studies from UBC courses exhibit students as active agents in their learning through collaborative projects. Open writing projects for Wikipedia supported the development of research, writing and collaboration skills while creating contributions to public knowledge. Students creating learning resources for peers integrated research to communicate topics creatively and develop digital literacies. Initiatives like undergraduate learning assistants, learning technology rovers, and student directed seminars positioned teaching as a partnership with students developing planning and problem-solving skills.
This document discusses using sensemaking as an alternative to traditional evaluations for developing a distance learning research methods module. Sensemaking focuses on understanding complex situations and student learning processes. The author proposes using a modified lesson study approach where tutors and students collaboratively plan learning packages, students complete the work and are interviewed, and insights are used to plan future work. Two student experiences are described that had different processes but both found the practical focus useful. Some reflections note the potential for sensemaking to provide rich narratives of learning, inform curriculum development in real-time, and give insights into student learning ecologies compared to more reductive evaluations.
How the Centre for Innovation in Higher Education (CIHE) drives and enhances multi-disciplinary pedagogic innovation
Presented at the Advance HE Teaching and Learning Conference 2-4 July 2019 by Dr Simon Pratt-Adams (Director of CIHE), Dr Emma Coonan (Research Fellow, CIHE), Dr Paul Dyer (Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University), David Jay (Language Skills Tutor, Anglia Ruskin University), Sarah Etchells (Acting Director of Studies, Anglia Ruskin University) and Paul Driver (Learning Technologist, Anglia Ruskin University).
This document summarizes a participatory research project called PAIRS that involved students in evaluating their learning experiences and providing input to staff development initiatives. The project had two phases: first, students submitted written stories about their learning experiences; second, a small group of students helped analyze themes in the stories and identify implications for staff training. Key themes that emerged included the importance of supportive tutors, flexibility, and communication. Students indicated participation was motivated by a desire to improve their education and have their voices heard. The methodology provided rich qualitative data but was also time-intensive. Participatory approaches work best to explore major issues rather than replacing traditional evaluations.
Phil Ice's: Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Assess the Impact of ...Alexandra M. Pickett
SLN SOLsummit 2010
http://slnsolsummit2010.edublogs.org
February 25, 2010
Phil Ice, Director of Course Design, Research & Development, American Public University System
Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Assess the Impact of Instructional Design Strategies and New Technologies in Online Courses
This presentation will examine how the efficacy of instructional design components and new online learning technologies can be assessed with indicators of the Community of Inquiry Framework (CoI). The CoI framework has attracted considerable interest and has been used extensively to study and design online educational environments (Garrison & Arbough, 2007). The CoI explains the online learning experience as a function of three overlapping presences – social, cognitive, and teaching. The construct was validated through factor analysis by a multi-institutional team of researchers in 2007 (Swan, Richardson, Ice, Garrison, Cleaveland-Innes & Arbough, 2008), however, many questions remain as to what factors influence the effective projection of each presence. As the model is based on constructivist learning theory, the impact of well designed instruction and pedagogically based application of new technologies should impact the level and quality of interactions probed by the CoI indicators. This session will examine how quantitative and qualitative analysis of course outcomes, using the CoI survey instrument and associated rubrics can be applied to continuous quality improvement from an instructional design perspective. Participants will be provided with instruments, analysis techniques and ideas or application in their own practice.
The document summarizes the results of the Open Research Agenda consultation exercise conducted in 2016. The consultation aimed to better understand research priorities in open education by gathering input from practitioners through an online survey and discussions at various conferences. Key findings included that the most important identified research areas were assessment, awareness/perceptions, and business models. Respondents represented various roles but most identified as educators. The results informed discussions at the Open Education 2016 conference on setting future research directions and identifying potential collaborations in open education research.
Slides presented at Open Education 2016. The Open Research Agenda is an international consultation exercise on research priorities in open education which combines online surveys and focus group interactions. This presentation summarises thematic analysis of the data set and indicates future directions for research in the field of open education.
This document summarizes a workshop on linking learning analytics, learning design, and MOOCs. It discusses how learning analytics can provide actionable intelligence for learners and educators. Group activities involved analyzing MOOCs to identify learning outcomes, assessments, and how analytics could support learning. The document suggests learning design tools like templates, planners, and maps can help identify useful analytics and frame analytics questions. The goal is to use analytics to facilitate learning, identify struggles, engagement, and address problems by starting with pedagogy.
EMMA Summer School - Rebecca Ferguson - Learning design and learning analytic...EUmoocs
This hands-on workshop will work with learning design tools and with massive open online courses (MOOCs) on the FutureLearn platform to explore how learning design can be used to influence the choice and design of learning analytics. This workshop will be of interest to people who are involved in the design or presentation of online courses, and to those who want to find out more about learning design, learning analytics or MOOCs. Participants will find it helpful to have registered for FutureLearn and explored the platform for a short time in advance of the workshop.
This presentation was given during the EMMA Summer School, that took place in Ischia (Italy) on 4-11 July 2015.
More info on the website: http://project.europeanmoocs.eu/project/get-involved/summer-school/
Follow our MOOCs: http://platform.europeanmoocs.eu/MOOCs
Design and deliver your MOOC with EMMA: http://project.europeanmoocs.eu/project/get-involved/become-an-emma-mooc-provider/
This document outlines an environmental science project implemented at St. Mary's District Collegiate Vocational Institute. The purpose was for students to address a current environmental issue by developing and implementing a plan. Students worked in groups and had choice in their topic and approach. They conducted research, collaborated, and implemented their plans. The teacher provided feedback through regular conferencing. Students shared their learning in a format of their choice. The project aimed to develop skills like inquiry, problem solving, and communication while targeting learning outcomes. Assessment included conferencing, observations, and student reflection. Overall, the project engaged students in authentic learning and addressed key competencies.
Supported Student Success: Communities of Practice in Higher EducationAimee deChambeau
This research tells a story about how students form communities of practice that help them succeed in graduate school. Told within the context of individual and collective experiences, it holds valuable lessons for how student success can be supported across the higher education landscape. Communities of practice can develop spontaneously when individuals involved in a common activity or with a sense of shared identity come together to deal with organizational complexities or establish a forum for continued learning. The practice of becoming an accomplished and successful student who is able to develop scholarly abilities and deepen disciplinary understanding, experience personal growth and achievement, while at the same time maintaining a healthy school-work-life balance is a non-trivial exercise. Membership in a community of practice can help students achieve success as part of the process of navigating this complex journey. Generously informed by the experiences of sustainability education doctoral students, this research used survey responses, anecdote circles, interviews, and grounded theory methods to determine how communities of practice develop among graduate students in support of their success. This presentation asks and answers questions about what communities of practice are, how and why they develop, and what value they can bring to higher education.
From the Salon to the Agora:Using Online Social Networks to Foster Preservice Teachers’ Membership in a Networked Community of Praxis. Justin Reich, Meira Levinson, and William Johnston; Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Courses as research projects and students in the role as researchersKjetil Sandvik
The document summarizes a conference on using courses as research projects where students take on researcher roles. It describes a case study where a master's course on communication was turned into a research laboratory. Students were divided into research teams, given research questions from professors, and performed case studies and analysis. They presented their results as mini-conference papers. The course engaged students in the role of researchers and produced high-quality output. However, it faced obstacles from students' and universities' preconceptions about traditional learning. The document argues for learning communities and breaking hierarchies to facilitate collaborative knowledge production instead of knowledge acquisition.
Using Moodle and Big Blue Button for Engaging Learners in Online Discussions_dua
The document discusses the Engaging Learners in Online Discussion (ELOD) professional development course for online tutors at Open Universities Australia. It provides an overview of ELOD, including its goals of adopting a social constructivist approach to develop tutoring skills through online interaction and reflection. The summary describes how ELOD is run over 4 weeks and 10 hours, using Moodle and asynchronous discussion forums. It also highlights feedback which found ELOD informative and effective at improving understanding of online tutoring.
This document summarizes a playful learning activity organized by Dr. Chrissi Nerantzi for academic developers. Participants were paired up and given £3 each to purchase two items within one hour that could help address a teaching challenge. They documented their thought process through photos and videos. Afterwards, they demonstrated and evaluated their ideas. The goal was to foster creativity in solving problems of practice in a fun, collaborative manner that moved beyond traditional conversation. Playful learning techniques like this can help academics explore new approaches within their disciplines.
Introducing Openness through the national professional development initiative...Chrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a UNESCO project in Uzbekistan that aims to improve professional development for foreign language teachers through open education. The project involves reviewing an existing online course, planning collaboration with other institutions, and creating an open textbook. It proposes adopting open pedagogies like collaborative learning, reflection, and virtual exchange. The project team faces challenges like different time zones but builds on diversity. Overall, the project aims to certify teachers through open, collaborative learning opportunities that develop global competence.
What fuels pedagogic innovation? 22nd of May 2018 University of LeedsChrissi Nerantzi
This document summarizes a presentation on pedagogic innovation in higher education given at the 12th Research Students' Education Conference at the University of Leeds on May 22, 2018. The presentation discusses what fuels pedagogic innovation, defines a pedagogic innovator, reviews factors that help or hinder innovation, and proposes ways that institutions can foster innovation, such as supporting communities of practice, creating protected spaces for experimentation ("greenhousing"), and investing in innovative educators.
Towards free range professional development of HE teachersChrissi Nerantzi
The document summarizes a presentation about designing alternative models for professional development of higher education teachers based on an open community approach. It discusses findings from a phenomenographic study that examined the collaborative open learning experience of participants in two open cross-institutional courses. The study identified categories of description related to how participants experienced the courses, collaboration, and boundary crossing. It proposes a cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework informed by literature that could guide innovative teaching and learning by harnessing technology and openness while building communities across institutions.
The university as a playground... invited LSE workshop 18 January 2018Chrissi Nerantzi
The document discusses the role of playfulness and creativity in higher education learning and teaching. It provides examples of how introducing playful elements can help students to experiment with ideas, take risks, and reimagine the world. The workshop then explores opportunities to inject more playfulness into teaching practices through discussion and creative activities.
This document provides an overview of a PhD student's research journey from 2013 to 2016. It summarizes their research exploring collaborative open learning in cross-institutional professional development courses for higher education teaching staff in the UK. The research included a phenomenographic study with interviews of 22 participants in two open online courses to understand experiences of collaborative open learning. The findings led to the development of an outcome space and proposed collaborative open learning framework. The document also outlines limitations, contributions to knowledge, and key events over the course of the research project.
This document discusses developing a flexible collaborative learning framework for open cross-institutional academic development courses at the postgraduate level. It outlines the author's revised research questions which aim to explore open collaborative learning and develop a collaborative design framework for open online cross-institutional courses. The document also summarizes the author's research design involving two case studies and data collection methods.
An open course developed by Chrissi Nerantzi and Lars Uhlin used problem-based learning and provided flexibility through distance and online learning. The course allowed multiple learning modes, including working independently or in groups. Over time, discussions emerged around incorporating group work and problem-based learning into MOOCs to enhance collaboration and connected learning. Various models were tried, such as rolling groups, learning hubs, discussion pyramids, and facilitated connected learning MOOCs. Platforms and apps also launched to support grouping in open online courses.
Doctoral studies Year 1 the journey @chrissinerantziChrissi Nerantzi
Chrissi Nerantzi presented on developing a flexible collaborative learning framework for open cross-institutional Academic Development courses at postgraduate level. The framework involved open PBL groups across multiple institutions. The course faced challenges with participant engagement and confusion, but facilitators and participants reported learning and value from connecting with others. Organizers will consider changes for future iterations like clearer grouping, earlier social connections, and limiting external speakers.
Dr. Chrissi Nerantzi discusses the educational benefits of using board games in higher education. She notes that board games can encourage group work, discussion, and help set the stage for cooperation. During the seminar, participants engaged with various board games, discussed adapting existing games for educational purposes, and brainstormed ways to create their own games. The goal was to demonstrate how playfulness and games can enhance learning.
Better together? workshop with Dr Stephen Powell #TELfest at Manchester MetChrissi Nerantzi
This document advertises an upcoming development opportunity on collaborative online learning hosted by Chrissi Nerantzi and Dr. Stephen Powell at TELfest on September 13, 2017. It will involve sharing experiences of online and collaborative learning, an overview of frameworks that support collaborative learning with technology, and a discussion of the attendees' contexts and practices. The document also advertises an open online course on flexible, open, and social learning starting on October 2nd that will allow participants to experience online learning as learners and work towards academic credits or use it for informal professional development.
This document provides information about the #creativeHE open online course that took place from January 16-20, 2017. It introduces the course facilitators and outlines the daily plan and topics to be covered over the 5 days. The goals of the course are also stated as reflecting on creative teaching and evaluating innovations in one's own practice. Participants are encouraged to share their stories, creations and reflections. Information is also provided about badges and writing for a magazine. The course organizers thank the facilitators and participants.
#DAPP162 Session 3: Designing for learning & learning theoriesChrissi Nerantzi
This document discusses various learning theories and their application to teaching practice. It begins by outlining three main theories of teaching in higher education: teaching as telling, teaching as organizing student activity, and teaching as making learning possible through cooperative and self-directed learning. Groups then studied theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, socio-constructivism, connectionism, and connectivism and created posters to highlight the key aspects of each. The document emphasizes applying theory to practice and constructing teaching methods, learning activities, and assessments to align with intended learning outcomes.
This document discusses the UK Professional Standards Framework (PSF) for higher education teaching. It provides an overview of the PSF descriptors and dimensions. The descriptors outline four levels of experience and responsibility - Associate Fellow, Fellow, Senior Fellow, and Principal Fellow. The dimensions cover areas of activity, core knowledge, and professional values that are important for teaching in higher education. The document also discusses changes in higher education, including the student experience and employability, and how these may influence teaching practices.
2016 #DAPP162 Reflection, UK PSF, Observations >>> week 1Chrissi Nerantzi
This document discusses reflection and observations of teaching. It begins with an introduction to reflection, including definitions and models of reflection. It emphasizes the importance of reflection being a collegial activity. It then discusses conducting observations of teaching, including checklists and providing feedback. It stresses using reflection to improve based on observations. The intended learning outcomes are also summarized.
It is all about... for the 3 June 16 :) What would you add? Chrissi Nerantzi
Dr Alison James kindly invited me to the event:
Social status: creative uses of social media in higher education which will take place at the University of the Arts London on the 3rd of June. See http://events.arts.ac.uk/event/2016/6/3/Social-status-creative-uses-of-social-media-in-higher-education/ for further details.
As you can see the title of my contribution is incomplete. What would you add?
#creativeHE is back for 5 days during Open Education Week! Join us.Chrissi Nerantzi
1) #creativeHE is a 5-day open online course from 7-11 March 2016 about creative learning and teaching in higher education facilitated by Chrissi Nerantzi and others.
2) The course aims to help participants reflect on using creativity to engage students and discuss challenges to creative teaching, and evaluate innovations in their own practice.
3) The plan is for participants to familiarize themselves with the topic and each other before taking part in daily sessions on creativity, play/games, storytelling, making, and celebrating open creativity.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Physiology and chemistry of skin and pigmentation, hairs, scalp, lips and nail, Cleansing cream, Lotions, Face powders, Face packs, Lipsticks, Bath products, soaps and baby product,
Preparation and standardization of the following : Tonic, Bleaches, Dentifrices and Mouth washes & Tooth Pastes, Cosmetics for Nails.
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest
1. Towards a cross-boundary
collaborative open learning
framework for cross-institutional
academic development
Viva preparation resources
Chrissi Nerantzi
2017
2. Health warning
• These are only sample materials and questions
• You will need to adapt questions to your context
and also there will be many questions that will be
specific to your study only.
• The answers provided to the questions and
shown here, are provisional and further changes
were made on paper as these were then used as
flashcards for the mock viva grillings… as I called
them ;).
3. What you will find here
• Research summary
• Viva questions
• Chapter summaries
• To take with me into the viva
• Used and useful during the viva
• Questions I was asked
These sections are indicated with bright yellow
slides.
4. I hope some of it will be useful for others
preparing for their viva.
Feel free to adapt!
5. Timeline of viva preparation
5th May 2017 submission of thesis
5th June 2017 started viva prep (reading questions,
created this presentation, formulating questions and
answers)
18th July 2017 above prep completed
28 July mock viva 28
August 2017 continued prep until back from holidays.
Early September 2017 seven mock viva grillings by Adam
last one 5 Sep 2017
1 Sept 2017 mini DoS mock viva
4 Sep 2017 last chat with supervisor
6. Whole studies
Started studies 14 January 2013
Data collection 2013-2015
Draft 1 July 2016
Draft 2 January 2017
Thesis ready April 2017
Thesis submitted 5 May 2017
Examiners approved at School level 22 June 2017
Examiners approved at institutional level 4 July 2017
Viva date confirmed 24 July 2017
Viva date 8 September 2017
8. In this PhD I explored…
• Collaborative open learning in cross-institutional
professional development courses for those who
teach in HE in the UK.
• Collaborative open learning is defined for this
study as learning that happens in openly-licensed
courses online and offline, where collaboration is
a choice and designed-into the course.
• The collaborations among institutions are of
informal nature driven by practitioners.
9. RQs
• 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 RQ1 and
RQ2, what could be the key features of a proposed
collaborative open learning framework for open cross-
institutional academic development courses?
10. I did this by…
• Conducting a phenomenographic study to gain insights into the
collective lived collaborative open learning experience and identify
the qualitatively limited different ways in which it was experienced
(Marton, 1981) aiming to inform practice.
• Collecting data via individual remote interviews with 22 participants
on 2 open courses, FDOL and #creativeHE (collective case study
approach, Stake, 1995)
• The findings led to 11 categories of descriptions grouped in 3 pools:
collaboration, course, boundary crossing and their variations.
• The final phenomenographic output was the outcome space which
shows the inter-relationships of the categories of descriptions.
• A collaborative open learning framework was developed based on
the discussion of the findings.
• Background information and demographics of the collective case
study we collected through 2 survey instruments
11. Initial survey,
19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey,
3 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(data collection method)
Pool 1
Course
4 categories of
description
Pool 3 Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 2
Boundary crossing
4 categories of
description
Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)
Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2
#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+
Surveys
findings
Two surveys (background
information,
demographics)
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
RQ1
and
RQ2
Disc.
Open-
ness in
HE
Digital
tech and
frame-
works
Learning
with
others in
groups
Academic
development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning
p.105
12. Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25) ---- 33 study participants in
total
studies
work
location
age
work place
formal/informal study
Group members 77%
On own 13%
Didn’t participate 5%
Study time
Up to 3 hrs 54%
3-5 hours 14%
Over 5 hours 32%
Final survey responses (n=22)
13. 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)
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)
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
14. 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.
15. Learner engagement patterns
Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator
• 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
• Process
• Some asynchronous group activities
• Sporadic synchronous group activities
• Light touch facilitation
• Social relationships, community
• Regular asynchronous group activities
• Regular synchronous activities
• Regularly facilitation (push – pull)
• 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
16. Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development
Visualisation by Elizabeth Walshaw
17. This research is important because…
• To break free from conservatism in academic development, to model
innovations in learning and teaching and to enable staff to experience
these first hand
• Seize opportunities presented by the importance placed in academic
development as teaching moved centre stage, technological
advancements (digital, social media), the open education movement.
• Respond to the call from the sector for more collaborative, connected and
open provision across institutions in the UK and further afield.
• To transform practices, practitioners, how academic development is
practised currently and put forward a case for new practices.
• Propose an alternative model to drive quality of teaching, against the
competitive model linked to financial gains proposed by the government
with the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (BIS, 2016).
18. I reviewed the literature around…
• Collaborative learning
• Open education in HE
• Digital technologies for learning and design
frameworks
• Academic development in the UK
19. The main methodological limitations
(p. 143)
• Researcher as participant (facilitator and
researcher): bracketing measures to suspend
judgement, reflective diary, transcript and
findings shared with participants to identify if
these resonate with some of their experiences, p.
147
• Piloting of the data collection (Survey piloting p.
144, interview piloting p. 144, suitability test
outcomes from interview piloting: Too many
questions, responses provided without need of
all questions to be asked, Adobe > Skype) to
strengthen research design
20. Limitations of this study
• Study participants: the majority where learning in groups.
Therefore large proportion of data from these. More
autonomous participants may have provided different
range of data.
• Sole researcher: no peer discussions due to the nature of
this research (assessed). Addressed through reflective diary
capturing research process for the reader to decide on
credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
• Developing as a phenomenographic interviewer: Over-
preparation of questions. Less questions provided rich
reflective responses as they were open. Adjustments were
made as interviews progressed. Pilot interview also helped.
A more organic approach to be adopted in the future.
21. My contribution to knowledge and
practice…
In the area of open academic development
Contribution to theory
• Gaining new insights into collaborative open learning
patterns (RQ1) (immersive and selective collaboration >
anyone (staff, students, public + online and offline)
• Identification of course features that foster cross-boundary
collaborative open learning (RQ2) (facilitation, elastic
design, community)
Contribution to practice
• Development of a collaborative open learning framework
(design features, learning patterns, learner needs)
22. Directions for future research
• Testing the collaborative open learning
framework in practice
• A case-study free approach for data
collection with a different sample
• Study the open facilitator experience
23. 7 points about this study
• Teaching excellence framework in the UK to raise quality of teaching based
on a competitive model with financial incentives for universities
• I propose instead collaboration and openness to engage academics in CPD,
change practices and innovate
• I explored the collaborative open learning experience in two openly
licensed cross-institutional academic development courses (collective case
study) using phenomenography, how collaborative open learning is
experienced, what design features influence this experience
• I interviewed 22 study participants from the collective case
• I found out how participants experienced collaborative open learning (as
immersive and selective collaborators) and what design features
influenced that experience (design, facilitation, community)
• boundary crossing significant factor of the experience
• construction of an openly licensed cross-boundary collaborative open
learning framework (leaner patterns, learner needs, design characteristics)
for other academic developers to adapt.
26. How did you develop interest in this
area?
• Open practitioner, committed to academic
development and exploring approaches that
could attract academics to engage in CPD
• Fascinated and curious how open learning is
experienced especially when people come
together online
• Seeds for this work in my MSc dissertation online
PBL pilot, academic developers and participants
in different UK institutions on PgCerts to learn
together (focus assessment and feedback).
27. What are the reasons for conducting
this study?
• Open education is becoming more wide-
spread.
• Exploring how we can harness it in the context
of academic development and model
innovative practices that engage academics in
alternative forms of CPD
• Gaining insights into the collaborative open
learning experience and influencing future
practices through findings and framework
28. How do you feel about your thesis?
• A sense of achievement (new insights,
framework) useful for own practice and hopefully
others.
• We talk a lot and how to engage academics in
CPD. The framework developed provides new
insights an alternative for academic development
that models an innovative approach in the area of
open education through cross-boundary
collaboration that has the potential to transform
our offer.
29. Could you summarise key points of
your thesis?
• I conducted a phenomenographic study to explore the
collaborative open learning experience in two open
cross-institutional academic courses.
• The findings evidence that collaborative open learning
was lived as an immersive and selective experience in
these two courses. 22 participants
• A framework was constructed based on the discussion
of the findings (anyone, anywhere, anyhelp, anyhow,
learner as community, course as community) that can
be considered by developers who are interested in
adopting alternative practices
30. What was the most interesting/surprising
discovery you made?
What emerged through the data:
• Boundary crossing and its importance for the
study participants in the two open cross-
institutional academic development courses, how
this shaped their experience.
• Collaborative open learning patterns and how
both were dynamic and valuable for engagement
and development.
• That open courses also extend learning linked to
local/offline support communities.
31. How has your view of your research
topic changed?
• New insights how collaborative open learning
is experienced (immersive, selective but
dynamic patterns)
• New dimensions brought to light:
– Boundary crossing and role in collaborative open
learning
– Offline dimension of open learning
– Importance of community/communities
32. What did you enjoy the most? What
are you the most proud of and why?
• The synthesis of the findings as it is a creative
process.
• Making meaning out of chaos to construct the
categories of description, the outcome space
and then the openly licensed framework that
can be used in practice to make a difference to
how academic development is practiced.
33. What did you find particularly
challenging?
• Analysing 100,999 words of transcript. The
analysis process was complex and frustrating
at times (reflective diary).
• Initially using Nvivo as it was a new tool for
me.
• Gaining confidence in the methodology and
trusting what the data was telling me.
34. How did this research change you as a
researcher? What have you learnt from the
process of doing a PhD?
• Through this complex and long process, I have learnt
that I have endurance and persistence and deal with
challenges to complete such a research project.
• Recognised the value of reflection during the research
process to question myself and build confidence.
• I have become more confident with phenomenography
and have started helping other phenomenographers.
• Helped me develop MA supervision skills which I have
started applying.
35. What would you do differently if you were
starting out all over again? How could you
improve your work?
• Interviews: a more organic approach, less
questions, which did happen as the interviews
progressed
• Background information could also have been
collected through interviews. So no surveys at
all or just one initial survey.
• Perhaps trying a case study free approach?
More diverse data around the collaborative
open learning experience?
36. Did you do anything wrong? Why?
• There are always ways to improve.
• I was a relative new phenomenographer. This
was a big study.
• I could have simplified the process. The two
surveys were probably not needed.
• Too many questions in interviews.
• Could perhaps collect data from open
community NOT from specific case studies
(added complexity).
37. Why is this research important? Why is this
problem you tackled worth tackling?
• Insights provide opportunities for consideration
of an alternative approach to academic
development and model this using technology-
supported and open pedagogical approaches.
• It provides evidence how collaborative open
learning is experienced in such settings by
academics and what this meant to them.
• It shows that academics value this type of
professional development.
38. What are the main issues and debates
in this subject area?
• Raise quality of teaching through stimulating
and immersive CPD for academics as students.
• Academic development more current and
model innovative: At the moment often
institutional and workshop-based. Still
challenges with technology often separated.
• Opportunity to harness open education: to
achieve the above and create sustainable and
innovative models.
39. What are the strongest features of
your research?
• The outcome space as a synthesis of the
categories of description provide a clear visual
map of the categories of description and how
these are interlinked.
• The outcome space enabled the construction
of a framework to make the findings usable
for practice.
• That the work can be used in practice.
40. What contribution does your thesis make?
What have you done that merits a PhD?
• Carried out work that hasn’t been done before.
• Insights into the collaborative open learning
experience (learner patterns: selective,
immersive collaborator)
• Insights into the design features to foster
collaborative open learning
• Synthesis of findings led to the development of a
new framework for collaborative open learning
41. In one sentence, what is your thesis?
• The thesis provides insights into how cross-
boundary collaborative open learning in cross-
institutional academic development was
experienced and opportunities for practice
through the findings and the framework
constructed.
42. What is the idea that binds your thesis
together?
• Open professional development can make a
real difference to engaging academics in CPD
in cross-boundary settings that foster
collaborative learning.
43. What are the weakest features of your research?
What are the defects of your study?
• Majority of study participants worked in
groups (77%)
• Sole researcher as it was a doctoral study.
Validation by fellow researchers would have
strengthened the findings
• Researcher’s development as a
phenomenographic interviewer: sticking to
the script initially but moved away
progressively, more organic approach
44. Explain the steps you carried out in your
research. What was the chronology of your
study?
• My interest in this field led me to the formulation of research questions around
collaborative learning, how it is experienced and designed into an open course in
academic development.
• Selected 2 open courses to collect the data. Had access to these and they had
collaborative learning features.
• Courses were offered and phenomenographic data and I collected via 22
interviews.
• Survey instruments helped construct the collective case study, background
information.
• The analysis followed. Categories and outcomes space where formed.
• Literature review was conducted based on the findings but also the research
questions (collaboration, openness, use of technologies, frameworks, academic
development, boundary crossing).
• Discussion linked to RQ1 and RQ2 followed and the framework was developed
(RQ3).
• Have been writing systematically from early on.
• But after I have had the findings, I wrote more systematically the discussion and
conclusion happened progressively through many iterations and reviews.
45. What were the crucial research
decisions you made?
• Defining the focus of study, research questions
and outputs
• Deciding on the appropriate methodology
• How best to collect data to help articulate a
response to the research questions
• To systematically work on this study over the
last 4.5 years despite a full-time job and a
young family
46. Where did the research questions
come from?
• I am an open practitioner, open projects.
• Value collaboration.
• Know that collaboration can make a difference to
academic development. Managerial approaches
within institutions don’t work (Crawford, 2009).
• Academics reach out to external disciplinary
networks and communities, belonging.
• I wanted evidence how collaborative open
learning is experienced in cross-institutional open
courses and impact this has on engagement in
CPD and impact this has on engagement in CPD.
47. Did the research questions change
along the way?
• YES they did.
• Initial questions were submitted together with
the PhD proposal, before the study began.
• I kept a record of how the questions evolved
over time at the top of the annotated table of
content for the whole thesis.
• RQs changed 6 times. BUT changes are small
often to bring more clarity and focus.
• See next slide >>>
48. RQs
Initial RQs Final RQs
RQ1 How can collaborative learning
approaches be used to create positive
opportunities for collaboration and
peer learning in open cross-
institutional Academic Development
courses?
How are open cross-institutional
academic development courses that
have been designed to provide
opportunities for collaborative open
learning experienced by learners?
RQ2 What design factors and enabling
aspects promote deep engagement
and effective learning in open cross-
institutional Academic Development
courses?
Which characteristics of open cross-
institutional academic development
courses most strongly influence
learners' collaborative open learning
experience and how?
RQ3 Drawing upon research findings from
research questions 1 and 2, what
would be the key features of a
proposed collaborative design
framework for open online cross-
institutional academic development
courses?
Drawing upon research findings from
RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key
characteristics of a proposed
collaborative open learning framework
for open cross-institutional academic
development courses?
Note: earlier version… what are…
49. Did you access other thesis?
• My exploration with the literature took me to the following
– (academic CPD) >>>Karen Crawford’s thesis (2009) CPD post-
and pre-1992 institutions CPD, multi-case exploration, 36
academic staff > findings: negative effects on managerial
models, external networks.
– (postgrad students) >>> p. 77> Chung-Ming Ou (2012) Dynamics
among non-English native speaking online learners and coping
mechanism < cross-cultural online collaboration (grounded
theory), 40 postgrad students in US and Taiwan on Education
Psychology programmes, small groups using PBL> findings need
for “collaboration-friendly” approaches to create a community,
also flexibility and facilitator, peer support. Issues with English
were overcome through support.
50. How do you define cross-institutional
academic development?
• Collaboration among and across institutions
that is of informal nature.
• Grassroots development driven by
practitioners based on the idea of “little OER”
(Wenger, 2011).
51. How do you define open educational
practices?
Courses, activities, practices supported by digital
technologies using the internet and social and
open media that utilise OER and often made
available under a creative commons licence.
Organised by individuals, institution or groups
that are opened-up extensions of existing formal
or informal activities or new. Open badges are
often awarded to participants in these and
others may be working towards credits.
52. Strengths: what are the highlights of the
thesis? What might others find valuable?
The cross-boundary collaborative open
learning framework.
The two patterns, immersive and selective
Open learning as online and offline
dimension
Value of boundary crossing.
Weaknesses: what parts are difficult to
explain? What are the limitations of what
you’ve done?
The use of a collective case study. Why not
data from the wider open community?
Findings related to the collective case study
but deep insights.
Opportunities: how might you extend your
work? What can you do now?
Consider the facilitator experience.
Incorporate in the collaborative open
learning framework.
New study that brings learner and facilitator
experience together.
Threats: how might someone criticise what
you’ve done? Are there any potential
problems?
My dual role, facilitator/organiser and
researcher.
Personal bias and open educator (activist)
BUT phenomenography enabled me to step
outside (bracketing as much as possible) and
include all voices.
Source http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/
53. What skills have you developed?
• Carry out phenomenographic research with
greater confidence.
• Develop phenomenographic interview
techniques further.
• Systematic approach to a large scale research
project.
• Networking for research purposes.
• MA supervision skills developed further and
applying already.
54. In what ways would you say you
achieved what you set out to achieve?
• I set out to explore the collaborative open learning
experience in cross-institutional academic
development courses (2 cases).
• I did this through a phenomenographic study and
gained deep insights into the experience and
identifying also specific design features that share that
experience.
• My findings have been synthesised in the proposed
framework.
• Boundary crossing is something that became
fundamental to my exploration. A fascinating discovery
in the context of academic development.
56. What informed the literature review?
• Research questions provided a starting point.
• Started reading broad areas linked to these:
collaborative learning, open education, academic
development, design frameworks supported by
digital technologies and social media.
• After the phenomenographic analysis, I did most
of the literature review. This is informed by the
themes that emerged through the data, such as
crossing boundaries, cooperative and
collaborative learning.
57. What strategies did you use to identify
literature?
• Previous experience/knowledge/research
• Professional communities (SEDA, ALT, open
education etc.) mailing lists.
• Professional open networks (SEDA, GO-GN)
and national and international conferences
• Citations in academic papers
• Academia.edu, research gate.
58. List 3/5 key people in your field and explain how they influenced
your work/ What are the 3/5 most important papers which
relate to your thesis?
• Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education,
more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
• Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources,
highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to
CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional
tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
• Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that
emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
• Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in
learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in
Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
• Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)>
cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing
study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing
importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
• EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based),
interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
• EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors
> motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)
59. What published work is closest to
yours? How is your work different?
• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- &
post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external
professional networks and communities to avoid managerial
approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no
impact (p.86, p.90)
• Researched professional development of academics, collective case
study, interviews
• My work:
– Different starting point > open, cross-institutional CPD
– Studied the collaborative open learning experience in these settings
– Findings confirm the value of cross-boundary CPD has for academics
– Could be seen as evidence to support Crawford’s discoveries.
60. You make only limited reference to
MOOCs. How do you explain this?
• Lit review driven by the themes that emerges through
the data.
• Courses used in study were not MOOCs.
• MOOCs (2008) started as a form of open educational
practices with a focus on extremely large scale
implementation. Since 2012 beyond the initial cMOOCs
(connectivist MOOCs) based on the ethos of open
education, other MOOC types xMOOCs have appeared
with commercialised features and dimensions.
• MOOCs have been reviewed (p. 43) but only briefly as
the courses of this study are OEP small scale
interventions (Ehlers, 2011a) p. 44
61. Which are the areas you didn’t focus strongly in your
literature review and why? Why did you use certain
literatures and theories and not others?
• Literature reviewed based on the findings. The
findings were driving to discuss these.
• Therefore some literature more in the
periphery… such as MOOCs, value of OER/Open
Ed, the Teaching Excellence Framework for
example, plus value of OER, open education.
• Data collected in advance of TEF…
• Value of OER, Open Education more generally
• My focus was on the collaborative open learner
experience
62. Tell us about the theoretical framework that
underpins your research. What theories inform
your work?
63. Theoretical framework
Open education
Academic development
Collaborative learning
Technology-
supported
frameworks
Cross-
boundary
Collaborative
open
learning
“learning from
collaboration” +
“process goals”
(Dillenbourg,
1999)
Democratising
open ed
(Lane, 2009)
“little OER”
(Weller, 2011)
Proactive
external CPD
(Crawford,
2009)
community of
inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer,
2000, 2010)
cognitive, social,
facilitator
presence,
belonging,
facilitator support
(=growing
importance)
Gap: collaboration as a
process, especially in the
context of open ed
Gap: more inclusive models
needed (Lane, 2009);
scaffolding (McAuley et al.,
2010); cross-institutional,
cross-boundary (Hall and
Smyth, 2016)
Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative learning & teaching (2014); more outwards
facing CPD (Craword, 2009); harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a; Redecker et al.
2011)
Community building ac dev model restricted to internal (Popovic & Plank, 2016)
Gap: NO framework for
collaborative learning in
open ed. EE opening-up
framework mentions cross-
institutional collaboration
and collab learning BUT no
details how. (Inamorato de
Santos, 2016)
Boundary crossing in learning and expertise in
teams & networks: Finland US, horizontal
practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse
views (Engeström, Engeström & Kärkkäinen,
1995)
Public facing open scholar > informal open
communities (child welfare community
observed divide academia, public, subject
communities FB) (Coughlan & Perryman, 2012)
HE application: boundary objects animal
slaughtering> diversity, increase trust, reduce
misunderstandings, misinterpretations can
occur and conflict , strategies to overcome
these important (Algers, 2016)
64. 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.
65. On p.22 you state that academic development as a whole could break
free from conservatism and seize opportunities technologies present
(Beetham, 2015). Can you explain what you mean?
• Changes to PgCert programmes and tech now more used >
Initial development often
• Ongoing development institutionally often relies on
workshops, curriculum dev/review activities, increasingly
SoTL
• Often inwards facing
• Need to learn from conferences
• Open education
• Be more experimental, take risks and collaborative beyond
institutional borders on a regular basis.
• In the end we help raise the quality of teaching across the
sector
• Find attractive ways to engage academics in CPD
68. Initial survey,
19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey,
3 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(data collection method)
Pool 1
Course
4 categories of
description
Pool 3 Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 2
Boundary crossing
4 categories of
description
Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)
Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2
#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+
Surveys
findings
Two surveys (background
information,
demographics)
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
RQ1
and
RQ2
Disc.
Open-
ness in
HE
Digital
tech and
frame-
works
Learning
with
others in
groups
Academic
development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning
p.105
69. What are the limitations in the design?
• Collective case study approach to collect
data: Findings are linked to these two courses.
This could also be its strength as it provides
deep insights into the experience in the
collective case study.
• Collaborative open learner experience
captured without facilitators. What would
facilitators’ experience add?
70. Why did you choose phenomenography as your
methodology? What are the advantages?
• Epistemology: subjectivism > Theoretical perspective: phenomenology >
methodology > phenomenological research (interpretivist phenomenographic
subjectivist perspective) > Methods: interview (Crotty, 1998 research framework,
design elements) (p.103)
• I was interested in studying the experience of collaborative open learners
• Enables the study of the lived experience and its qualitatively different variations,
therefore suitable and an attempt to be holistic, not advocacy research (which
there is a lot linked to open ed, Weller et al. 2017 chapter)
• Is holistic, not linked to individuals but describes the qualitatively different
variations of the collective experience, useful to identify patterns and construct a
framework
• All data is used, all voices are heard, all perspectives
• Has been developed for an HE research to enhance learning and teaching and
would help answer my research questions which are linked to the experience of
open learners.
• To enhance learning and teaching (Ference Marton, 1981)
71. What are the main criticisms about
phenomenography?
• Data analysed as a collective > individual ignored? (Saljö,
1996)
• Data analysis just based on guidelines (Marton, 1981)
• Findings often seen as hierarchical, correct and less correct
views? (Webb, 1997 looking at surface/deep learning,
Entwistle’s work)
• Suspending judgement? Neutrality really possible?
• Reliability > but increased if reviewed by others (Sandberg,
1999) but use of bracketing strategies can help reliability
and trustworthiness
• More research expected, will remain within HE research
and not become mainstream (Malcolm Tight, 2015)
72. Why did you not use variation theory?
• I discovered it at a later stage in this study.
• An interesting methodology that seems to move
responsibility of identifying variations to the
participants themselves. So participants are more
involved. <variations as experienced by the
experiencer> < awareness of variations>a more
participatory approach?
• I want to study this further and consider for the
future.
• Variation theory (Pang, 2003)
73. Why did you not use Grounded
theory?
• There are similarities.
• Starting from the data, codes, concepts and then
categories.
• But grounded theory is about generating
concepts to build theory.
• Not description of experiences.
• I wanted to explore conceptions of experiences as
described and their qualitatively different
variations.
74. What is the difference between phenomenography
and phenomenology (pp. 103-104)
Phenomenography Phenomenology
A person’s lived experience of a
phenomenon (experiencing red)
The study of the consciousness of the
phenomenon (red)
Aim is to gain insights into the variation of
the qualitatively different ways a group
experiences a phenomenon, how they are
reflected and described > people’s
conceptions of the world
The phenomenon is the focus, the
phenomenon is uncovered
Aim is to study the lived experience of a
phenomenon with a focus on the
experience itself, the essence of the
experience, how the phenomenon is
Second order research perspective>
description of individuals experiences as a
collective. The world as described.
First order research perspective> Researcher
focusses on the experience
Analysis leads to conceptions and the
outcome space.
Analysis leads to the identification of
meaning units.
Learning and teaching experiences,
specifically developed for this purpose.
Commonly used to study affective,
emotional intense experiences
75.
76. What precautions were taken against
bias?
• In phenomenography ALL data is used, so no filtering out.
Identifying qualitatively different variations is its strength.
• I put strategies in place to consciously suspend judgment and
minimise data contamination (reflective diary, asking self “Why
have I done this/say this?”, sharing transcript with participants for
accuracy, findings, outcomes space and framework)
• The framework was peer reviewed by researchers from across the
world (11)
• Bracketing, to suspend/minimise judgement as much as possible
Bracketing >>> only partially possible (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000) /
Selective bracketing (Adawi, Berlund, Botth & Ingerman (2001) p.
112. Reduction in contamination awareness raising, managing this
through specific strategies >>> See next one
• Thesis written in 3rd person
77. What bracketing strategies did you
use?
• Whole thesis written in the 3rd person
• My voice in prologue, epilogue only which sit outside the thesis
• Interview questions were open, listened carefully, didn’t assume,
asked for further information, details during the interview.
• Kept a reflective diary (data collection and data analysis),
transparency to the process
• Returned draft transcript to participants for checking
• Shared draft chapter 5 (findings) with participants I interviewed
• Didn’t conduct any literature review during the analysis stage
• Conducted literature review after the analysis had been completed
• Was inclusive and captured all voices in the transcript, dominant
and less dominant and all qualitatively different variations
• Coded all transcript
• Use extracts in findings from all participants, additional ones in
appendix
78. What does your reflective diary
include?
• The phenomenographic analysis process
• Some reflections on the interview process
(challenges with language, issue experienced as
facilitator-researcher)
• Information about participant researcher
• Images that capture the process (NVivo
screenshots, drawings of the draft outcome
space)
• Dilemmas and challenges during the analysis
• It is extensive and can be found in Appendix 5.2
79. What were the main ethical issues conducting
this research? How did you deal with them?
• Power relationship as I was a researcher and facilitator
• Aware of the risk, professional integrity and values, reflection on
the process, bracketing strategies
• Participation in study was voluntary, optional and open to all
learners in the two courses.
• Nobody was advantaged or disadvantaged from participating or not
in the study and could leave the study at any point.
• Surveys had no must complete questions.
• Interview questions open.
• Study participants who were also working towards credits and
would be assessed by researcher at the end of the semester/term
where reminded in information sheet and at the beginning at the
interview that their participation in study will not influence marking
of work, which did sit outside the open courses.
80. How did you decide when you had
enough participants?
• I studied the literature around phenomenography and
participants.
• Optimum number depends on the study (Sin, 2010;
Trigwell, 2000; Sandberg, 1996) (pp. 115-116)
• But between 12-20 for formal studies comes up.
• Tight (2016) says 20 or less.
• 20 is usually enough (Larsson & Holström, 2007) to
discover different ways of understanding a
phenomenon.
• Therefore I conducted around 20 interviews (22 in
total)
81. Talk us through the data analysis
method you used.
Followed Ference Marton (1986) guidelines BUT
no template or standard process, just guidelines
(p.115, p.138)
Phenomenographic analysis in steps >>>
Background information about the collective
case using two survey instrument (initial, final
survey)
83. What challenges did you encounter
with the data analysis?
• Amount of data: The data were 100,999 words. This is
a huge amount of data to analyse.
• Software: Initially the software used presented a
challenge as it was new to me (Nvivo).
• Process itself: phenomenographic analysis based on
guidelines (Ference Marton, 1981), not rigid process,
good when confident but a challenge when new to the
methodology.
• Iterative process: knowing when the categories and
outcome space are stable
• Sole researcher: Not been able to carry out the
analysis with somebody for debate and confirmation.
84. Why did you use Nvivo to analyse your
interview responses?
• Large amount of data
• 22 interviews, 100,999 words in total.
• While challenges to learn this software tool, it
was useful during the iterative data analysis
process.
• Make changes easily and quickly and have
overview of these changes.
• Used extracts in reflective diary as well, to
capture the analysis process and the different
stages.
85. How do you know your findings are
correct?
• Trustworthy and reliable as it is an explorative
qualitative study.
• Transparency of the process:
– Reflective diary to bracket and minimise data
contamination
– Confirmed transcripts with participants.
– Findings (categories, outcome space, discussion and
framework) shared with participants
– Included quotes from all participants in thesis (each
participant has a unique identifier)
• Peer review of framework by 11 practitioners
86. What alternatives methodological
approaches did you consider and why
did you reject these?
• Researcher participant: I could consider action research (advocacy
research) especially as I had a dual role (facilitator and researcher)
• Not used because:
– I was particularly interested in the participants’ experience
– More holistic research needed beyond advocacy (Weller et al. 2017,
book chapter about OER in new edited book)
• Considered also not using a collective case study approach to
collect data (both courses had designed in collaborative learning
features) BUT more practical to stay with the approach taken. I
thought it would have been too difficult to identify participants
otherwise.
• Could have used one of the pedagogical frameworks for analysis
(Community of practice, Wenger; 5-stage model, Salmon) I
reviewed these with others in the literature.
87. How and why did you choose to focus
on these particular case studies?
• I had access to these as the organiser
• Both were cross-institutional open courses in
the area of academic development, linked to
PgCert/MA in at least one institution
• Both had collaborative open learning features
designed in but different ones (PBL and more
flexible approach)
• They were offered in the timeframe of this
study
89. How did you develop the categories of
description?
• It was an iterative process.
• Initially I read all transcripts multiple times and annotated these on
paper.
• Moved everything into NVivo.
• Started creating nodes using the key interview questions/ themes
around collaboration.
• I could see that the data overall could be separated out into 3 pools.
(course, collaboration, boundary crossing)
• I moved things around many times and at some point I had to start
from scratch as it didn’t feel that I was getting anywhere.
• At some point categories stabilised and I didn’t feel the need to
make more changes.
• I then shared these with participants. They could see their
experience represented.
• I documented the process in the reflective journal. I included
challenges and dilemmas.
90. How did you develop the outcome
space?
• I carefully looked at the categories of
description again in the 3 pools.
• I started from trying to identify relationships
among the categories on paper, using flip
chart.
• Iterative process, various forms before this
became stable.
• Documented in the reflective journal
91. Can you describe the main findings in
a few sentences?
• There are 2 patterns of collaborative open learning,
selective and immersive
• Community plays a key role for immersive
collaboration
• Facilitator support is vital
• Boundary crossing enriches the experiences, motivate
people to participate in collaborative open learning
• Design needs to be flexible
• Development is ongoing, a community can play this
role
• Collaborative open learning has an offline dimension
92. 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)
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)
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
p.201
93. 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.
94. Learner engagement patterns
Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator
• 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
• Process
• Some asynchronous group activities
• Sporadic synchronous group activities
• Light touch facilitation
• Social relationships, community
• Regular asynchronous group activities
• Regular synchronous activities
• Regularly facilitation (push – pull)
• 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
p.237
95. On p.260 (conclusions) you state that the framework is for those
interesting in developing “cross-boundary-friendly” collab
learning opportunities. Can you explain what you mean?
• My findings confirmed the value of boundary
crossing in the context of academic development.
• The framework raises awareness of boundary
crossing, opportunities and challenges and
strategies to implement this type of learning
based on evidence from this study.
• Specific strategies such as choice, diverse
grouping, online/offline learning, community and
focus of collaboration on the process can
contribute to create “cross-boundary friendly”
settings also with the support of facilitators.
96. How do you think your work takes forward or
develops the literature in this field?
• New insights into the literature around collaborative
learning, strengthen the importance of collaboration as
a process (Dillenbourgh, 1999)
• Adds to the body of literature around open education
that is not presenting an advocate perspective.
• Adds to the body of literature around boundary
crossing, no literature found regarding this in the
context of academic development.
• Strengthens literature of role supported community
plays for professional development and cross-
institutional collaboration for CPD purposes.
97. What are the implications of your findings?
How could the results be used?
• Create alternative ways to offer academic
development, more collaborative, cross-
institutional and cross-boundary experience,
staff, students and the public learning together
• Alternative CPD opportunities for academic staff
within cross-boundary communities
• Further research in this area, the dimensions of
the framework could be used as the basis, also
the categories of description and the outcome
space
98. To what extent do your contributions
generalise?
• Findings provided deep insights into the experience
linked to the collective case study (2 courses) for future
enhancement of these courses. Framework could be
used.
• Relevant to other academic developers who consider
offering/developing such opened-up courses as these
are accredited provision that sit within at least one
institution and meet specific criteria that will be
relevant to other provision.
• More broadly collaborative learning in other settings,
blended and online provision with staff and students.
99. Who would easily agree with you?
Who would find your work useful?
• Academic developers who are interested in
the ideas of open learning and the
opportunities this brings.
• Other open practitioners who would like to
implement, review collaborative learning
strategies in open/online and blended
settings.
• I hope that practitioners engage critically
with this work and test the framework
100. Who would quickly disagree with you?
• Practitioners/institutions with a different philosophical
starting point (not open/not collaborative).
• When/where competition is more important than
collaboration would find it challenging.
• Academic developers and managers who perhaps see
these ideas as a threat that they could loose their jobs
or others resistant to change more generally? (Dastur,
2017 in the context of open, academic departments)
• I hope that this work will be a stimulus for reflection.
101. On p. 251 you state that you have given the framework for peer
review. Could you summarise the key observations?
• It provided deeper understanding about collab open learning
• Framework seen as valuable for course designers
• New dimension of boundary crossing was recognised
• They saw the opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration to overcome
political barriers (managerial ac dev)
• Also seen useful for MOOCs
• Alternative versions could be developed for learners, designers etc.
• Well structured, clear links to findings
Questions
• 3 dimensions: patterns and needs together, BUT course characteristics
somehow separate? Other perspective? >>> courses had collab features
so it was natural that participants would comment on how these shaped
their experience. NOT other perspective
• OER and open licensing didn’t feature strongly was a surprise for one
reviewern>>> but my work was about the collab open experience, for me
not a surprise as it was an immersive experience
103. What advice would you give to a
research student entering this area?
• A support network is invaluable
• Read widely, go and present at conferences
• Keep a reflective journal (blog)
• Work systematically and regularly
• Agree support strategies with supervisory team
• Persistence and resilience, when experiencing
difficulties take a break, share with a
friend/family member
104. To what developments could your ideas lead
and how could it be done?
• Recognising value and contribution of open
learning in the context of professional
development, link to formalised learning
• Spreading of diverse pick ‘n’ mix academic
development approaches > increase engagement
in CPD/ capture more complete picture of current
CPD that happens beyond an institution
• Acknowledge the importance cross-boundary
communities and establish these to foster diverse
development
105. How long will this work remain
innovative?
• Innovation is dynamic. Concepts, ideas evolve
and this will too. If practitioners see value in this
work, it will spread and could become normalised
practice. Then it will stop being novel and
innovative.
• As a practitioner researcher my interest is in
working on the boundaries, as these change so
will my exploration of the new opportunities
opening up
• Innovation is something that is dynamic and
changes all the time, so will my research
106. What developments have there been
in the field since you began your PhD?
• Sustainability of open ed discussed more, also at OE Global Cape Town 2017 (not in thesis, my
focus was on experience) Extensive funding a few years ago, but what is happening with projects
after funding stops?
• More open ed research since 2010, still very new discipline (Weller et al. 2017) more advocacy
research, holistic research missing
• The need to democratise of open education, Global North + Global South – still a gap, imperialistic
approach
• Resources > Practices > Communities ALSO open textbooks
• MOOCs open > commercialisation > closed > professional training
• Open > boundary crossing (Connected Curriculum work by (Dilly Fung, 2017 OER mentioned once,
no mention of open education at all, focus on inquiry-based learning); Porous University (Ronald
Macintyre, 2017)
• 2016 new book around Ac Development (Baume and Popovic) Models of ac development (Popovic
and Plank (2017) chapter> ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-
based’ NOT about open, not about external or cross-institutional, focus still on the institution
• More discussion about open pedagogy especially 2017 (David Wiley, Martin Weller, 2017) but still
ill defined usually on the use of OER, theory and practice not brought together
• Mainstreaming OER mainly but also open education
• Discussion around digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu) continues, new article August
2017 focus on mapping activity and how this is helping practitioners to discuss and review their
digital practices
107. Have you thought about publications?
Which journals are appropriate?
Ideas for papers
• The design of the framework
• The dimension of boundary crossing
• Open educational communities
• Review of HE including academic development and learning technology in the UK
(also timelines)
Open access journals
– Open Praxis (https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis) by the International Council for
Open and Distance Education, global partnership, links to UNESCO and partly funded by Norway
– The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
(http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) Athabasca University
– Journal of Applied Academic Practice, cross-institutional collaboration led by Edinburgh Napier
University, learning, teaching and academic development, broad rimit
(http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP)
– ALT Journal Association for Learning Technology, open access https://www.alt.ac.uk/topic/alt-
journal-open-access
I would have liked to publish in an open access Academic development journal but there isn’t one.
It is a shame that Innovations in Education and Teaching International, International Journal for
Academic Development (SEDA) BUT open select option (gold, where you have to pay to publish…
about £2000/article)
108. What are your plans post-PhD?
• Continue exploring collaborative open
learning, related research activities.
• Implement the framework (FOS).
• Facilitator perspective
• Framework for open learning that
incorporates collaborative learning.
110. Why are you doing this PhD at your
age? (from Prof. Sally Brown)
– Research into a new area that is dear to my heart
as an open practitioner, inquiry into how it works
– Produce something that is valuable for my own
future practice and others
– It is never too late. Learning is lifelong > Γηράσκω
αεί διδασκόμενος
111. Is there a question we should have
asked you? (Dr Need Yasin)
• If I would make any changes to the framework I developed
before writing it up for publication/implementing it in
practice.
• I would change “learner” to “learning” and “collaborator”
to “collaboration” so that it is clearer that these are
dynamic patterns. So immersive and selective collaboration
instead of collaborator, a person, as both patterns used by
the same person. This change would bring additional
clarity.
• Similar issues with deep, surface, strategic learning instead
of learner (paper: student approaches to learning, Oxford
uni) but also issue with learning styles (Frank Coffield)
112. Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development
Visualisation by Elizabeth Walshaw
learner > learning
collaborator > collaboration
115. Chapter 1
• Overview of study and context
• Aim to explore collaborative open learning in cross-institutional ac dev
• Definition of collab open learning: in groups supported by facilitators using
OEP / OEP = activities, courses, practices networked, social media usually
openly licensed and make use of OER.
• Context ac dev since 1970s, periphery > centre, massification >
diversification, teaching quality linked to financial gains (TEF, 2016) also
linked to student experience and learning, BUT managerial approach don’t
seem to work (Di Napoli, 2014; Crawford, 2009)
• My work: collab open development engage staff > drive quality, and
opportunity to design/implement innovative solutions to immerse staff as
students to experience and prepare and consider for own practice
• RQs> 1 experience, 2 design features, 3 framework
• Contribution> 1 framework, 2 insights into collab open learning 3 key
design feature
117. Theoretical framework
Open education
Academic development
Collaborative learning
Technology-
supported
frameworks
Cross-
boundary
Collaborative
open
learning
“learning from
collaboration”
(Dillenbourg,
1999)
Democratising
open ed
(Lane, 2009)
“little OER”
(Weller, 2011)
Proactive
external CPD
(Crawford,
2009)
community of
inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer,
2000, 2010)
cognitive, social,
facilitator
presence,
belonging,
facilitator support
(growing
importance)
Gap: collaboration as a
process, especially in the
context of open ed
Gap: more inclusive models
needed (Lane, 2009);
scaffolding (McAuley et al.,
2010); cross-institutional,
cross-boundary (Hall and
Smyth, 2016)
Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative
learning & teaching (2014); more
outwards facing CPD (Craword, 2009);
harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a;
Redecker et al. 2011)
Gap: NO framework for
collaborative learning in
open ed. EE opening-up
framework mentions cross-
institutional collaboration
and collab learning BUT no
details how. (Inamorato de
Santos, 2016)
Boundary crossing in learning
and expertise in teams &
networks: Finland US,
horizontal practice, breaks
monopoly of expert, diverse
views (Engeström, Engeström
& Kärkkäinen, 1995)
118. Chapter 2 (learning with others)
Learning with others
• Cooperative + collab learning in schools in 1960 also unis to (PBL Mc
Master 1960s med ed)
• Coop – individual tasks (experiential learning Dewey, 1938 group goal
• Collab – social interaction (social constructivism, Vygotsky 1930s)
collective
• Not clear distinction coop, collab
• Product vs process (Dillenbourg, 1999) “learning from collaboration” focus
more on process “ > “collaboration as learning” (ner &goss, 2015)
• Group membership size depends on purpose, collab learning as choice
• Relationships (theory of cooperation competition (Deutsch, 1949) > Social
interdependence theory (Johnson 1970; Johnson & Johnson 1999) =
positive, negative and no interdependence > self interest to mutual
interest, context cooperative learning, but also relevant to online collab
learning (Sharples et al. 2016)
119. Chapter 2 (open ed)
Open ed phase 1: OER, phase 2: OEP (Ehlers et al. 2011); conversations about open pedagogy now starting > but weak at the moment 5R (Wiley).
• Not new concept, also antiquity Plato academy, Sunday schools, correspondence ed BUT not digital and openly licensed
• 1970 open source movement, 1969 OU in UK
• 2001 MIT open courseware; 2006 OU openlearn
• 2001 OER Unesco term; 2002 cc licences; 2008 MOC; 2010 open textbooks (US); 2012 open badges (Mozilla)
• Open ed issues: cc lack of control, authenticity, plagiarism, open textbooks extensive funding; open bades credibility?, MOOCs/OER imperialistic, a few for
the many?, English language dominating? Alternative voices silenced > exclusion, lack of facilitation
• Little and big OER (Weller, 2011) also OE as continuum (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014) and EC (Inamorato de Santos, 2016) opening up framework (includes
collaboration and pedagogy but NOT details about collaborative learning how, cross-institutional collab is there)
• MOOCs facilitation as co-learner (new concept Bayne & Ross, 2014) mainly absent in reality
Boundary crossing
• Specialisation creates boundaries
• Engestroem et al (1995) study: boundary crossing creates horizonal working practices in a learning in teams networks context
• Akkermann & Bakker 2011: lit review (178 articles): diversity perspectives/practices; understanding own and others, transforming behaviour/practice
• In Open Ed usually boundary crossing as formal informal (Conole, 2013a)
• Concepts of wider boundary crossing is emerging: Leaky uni (Wall, 2015) uni and local community using dig tech; Levin 2004, democratic HE with public; Hall
& Smyth 2016 unbounded curriculum staff students public
• Algers study (2016) boundary objects (animal slaughtering) diverse voices, reduced conflict, but challenge also conflict and misinterpretation
• “Public facing scholar” (Coughlan, Perrimean 2012) study public wisdom of the crowd in voluntary sector
Cross-institutional dimension
• HEFCE 2011 encouraged also EC 2013, 2015 > cross-institutional collab vital for sector wide growth/innovation (HEFCE 2011) share resources/expertise, also
Scotland ‘Building a Smarter Future’ green paper.
• Study Morgan & Carey (2009) undergrad students Japan, Russia, Canada learning together asynchronous forum, issue with facilitation, positive> diversity
• Orr et al 2015 oER/OEP role for CPD create opportunities for collab, sharing, change practice
Staff-student partnership
• Healey et al 2014) benefits for staff and students, 4 areas to collaborate. Challenging in current climate in UK
120. Chapter 2 (frameworks, digital tech)
Digital tech for collab learning in HE
• 1960s first networks, when coop/collab learning started in schools, unis (PBL)
• Initially tech used for individual learning, focus on content, software packages
• Then 1993 the web, VLE, 2004 social media, 2007 mobile web > collaboration,
interaction
• “patchwork strategy” Wenger et al (2009)
• Digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu, 2011) based on motivations,
choice
• Beetham (2015) staff development needed build digital capacity
Frameworks
• CSCL (computer supported collab learning) only text at the time, individual/collab
learning, community, facilitation.
• Frameworks reviewed, features: facilitator, community, activity, choice
• Asynchronous, synchronous model and mobile
• Video link valuable for engagement
• Language/culture: diversity good for engagement BUT English dominant, can be a
problem for engagement. Difficulties overcome through support (Ou, 2012, phd
study)
121. Chapter 2 (ac dev)
• Started in 1970 periphery, small, enthusiasts, then government policies led
massification & diversification of HE in UK. Ac dev central stage, professional,
evidence-based to enhance quality of teaching, enhancement, teaching qual, prof
recognitions. UK HE professionalised (Ramsden, 2008) > timeline p.84
• Ac developers, range of approaches needed, managerial problematic, community
makes a difference, longer programmes (PgCer, Parsons et al. 2012) Craword (2009)
staff reach outside institition for CPD after Pgcert disicplinary communities, networks.
Need for internal and external CPD; Popovic (2016) different ac dev models, one of
them is community but internal.
• Dig practices: behind times but change happening. Focus now on building digital
capabilities and community, decentralised, distributed, collaborative (Beetham,
2015), Gunn (2011) > offer needs to be more diverse
• Cross-institutional: seen as driver for innovation, CPD engagement (Pawlyshyn et al
2015), early examples: 1990s in London to connect didn’t work, lack of online
learning and teaching capacity, 1998 collab PgCert in Scotland polytechnics safe
costs/resources; 2012 Gibbs (2012) talks about need for a national dev initiative as
more sustainable solution. More outwards facing CPD, first UK MOOC (Oxford Brooks)
First steps into learning and teaching in HE, my own work 2010 PgCert informal collab
across UK assess/feedback tasks. Findings importance of community and facilitator to
overcome barriers.
122. Chapter 3
• Research answers questions a. what is happening in the world b. test hypothesis
• Qualitative research open ended, interpretations of phenomena of individuals
• Social science – naturalistic, people and behaviour in the world
• Educational research enhancement of practice RQ1, RQ2 RQ3
• Research paradigm: ontology (what reality is), epistemology (relationship between researcher and
reality), methodology (methods to study reality)
• Subjectivism (Crotty, 1988) interpretative subjective experience = about phemonena
(phenomenology) and how these are experienced (phenomography)
• Positioning of research: subjectivism>phenomenology>phenomenological research
• Phenomenography (Marton 1981) qualitatively different variations of lived experience, focus on
collective. interview data collection, collective case (Stake, 1995) 2 settings, deeper understanding
about cases as they occur naturally, categories of description: all data, all voices iterative process,
guidelines, not a template, final output outcome space, visual representation of logical
relationships between categories.
• Participants depends on study, 20 mentioned in many.
• Trustworthiness, credibility: transcripts sharing, findings sharing with participants and researchers
• Bracketing particially possible: being aware, managing own voice, reflective diary, in interview,
analysis capturing thinking/dilemmas, categories with evidence (quotes)
• Methodological challenges:
– pilot interviewing: tech was a problem, only 1 test from Adobe to Skype
– Survey piloting 3, changes to survey questions (Final; study time added), Initial: work not just education)
– Researcher as participant (bracketing, own courses and relationships)
123. Chapter 4
• Background information, demographics to construct the collective case study through initial survey
(22 Qs) and final survey 3 (Qs) p. 151
INITIAL SURVEY
• Countries UK and Sweden but also other countries
• Qualifications: Masters, PhD > 84&
• HE working: 88%, other: 13% SMALL
• Informal study 76%, formal 24%
• Age: 76% 35-54
• Gender: 64% female, 36% male
• Prior experience: social media exp 48%, part in open course 60%, online collab 60%, all above 38%
NONE 6 out of 22 individuals
• Engagement intentions: 68% whole course, 36% access resources, interaction elements discussion,
webinar, collab, much lower
• Motivation: 100% prof dev, 100% be a learner, networking 93%, 24% study towards qualifications,
88% facilitator support
FINAL SURVNEY
• Nature of participation: 77% group member, 13% autonomous
• Study time: 54% up to 3 hours, 32% OVER 5 hours
• ASKED IF WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED
124. Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25)
studies
work
location
age
work place
formal/informal study
Group members 77%
On own 13%
Didn’t participate 5%
Study time
Up to 3 hrs 54%
3-5 hours 14%
Over 5 hours 32%
Final survey responses (n=22)
125. Chapter 5
Phenomenographic findings
Categories of descriptions directly from analysis and others
from interview questions.
Limited qualitatively different variations
• Bracketing: reflective diary, shared transcripts, chapter 5
with participants. Majority responded recognised their
experience
• 3 Pools of Meaning (course, boundary crossing,
collaboration)
Outcome space: logical relationships among categories,
visualisation
• Area A structural factors
• Area B lived experience
126. Pool of
Meanings
Categories of description Variations Codes
used in
the
outcome
space
5.2 Pool 1
(Course)
Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientation
Aiding participation
C1.1
Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagement
Fostering engagement
C1.2
Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instruction
Directive and controlling
Facilitative and supportive
C1.3
Open learning as designed for collaboration Constraining
Enabling
Empowering
C1.4
5.3 Pool 2
(Boundary
crossing)
Cross-boundary learning through modes of
participation
As a valued informal learning experience
As a valued mixed mode learning
experience
As a valued opportunity for recognition
C2.1
Cross-boundary learning through time, places and
space
As a disconnected experience
As a continuum
C2.2
Cross-boundary learning through culture and
language
As a barrier
As an enrichment C2.3
Cross-boundary learning through diverse
professional contexts
As initial discomfort
As a catalyst
C2.4
5.4 Pool 3
(Collaboration)
Collaboration as engagement in learning Selective
Immersive
C3.1
Collaboration as a means to shared product
creation
Product-process tension
Fulfilling C3.2
Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of others
Valuing the presence of others
C3.3
127. 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)
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)
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
129. 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)
Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-
institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning
staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015),
unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries,
informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language,
overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity
helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)
6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)
Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker.
Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work,
increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation
brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology
steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller
(2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.
6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)
Varied opportunities for engagement, oustide course
boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media
worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-
enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White
& Le Cornu, 2011)
6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)
Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner
choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this.
Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors
(White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave,
Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice.
Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small
groups
6.1.3 Learners as community
Social engagement esp for immersive collab important,
sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech,
confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison,
Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social
interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson
1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron comm
important for relationship building (video link).
6.2.3 Course as community
Especially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing
CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl.
Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on
community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes
build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little
OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)
130. 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.
131. Chapter 7
• Lit review showed new frameworks are needed. No framework around collab open
learning in cross-institutional ac dev was found
• Reviewed frameworks: commonalities> facilitator support, community, activities,
choice
• My framework
– Dynamic design tool
– Basis for further research activity
– Further exploration of collab open learning
Dimensions: learner engagement patterns, learner needs, design characteristics
Useful for:
• Academic dev: new type of CPD
• Ac staff: opportunity to be learners in new type of CPD before adopting
• Students: learn with staff in partnership
• Public: uni in the community, social good, learning opportunities extended, richer
• Researchers future research in this area linked to dimensions
CC BY NC SA non commercial adaptations allowed
132. Chapter 8
• Summary of study
collab open learning, call for more openness and cross-institut collab, formal/informal blurring > an alternative to TEF to raise quality
teaching?, we need more outwards facing (Crawford), tech-supp, acad as learners> collab PgCert in Scotland early idea in 1989, then
London joined course example but too risky?
• Contribution
– insights into collab open learning, selective/immersive pattern, online/offline, community, belonging, synch video link
strengthened relationships/commitment
– Cross-boundary dimension important, facilitation, flexible design, collab as a choice, formal/informal, inquiry approach,
community new way of CPD
– Framework: first of this kind. Brings experience and design together to help others design and implement
• Implications
– Academic dev > to review provison, consider outwards facing, cross-institutional, cross-boundary provision
– Academics > more CPD opportunities, networking, experiencing as learners, apply to own practice
– Researchers > framework useful or further studies, linked to specific dimensions of it
• Limitations/reflections
– Most participants in groups.
– Sole researcher, discussion with others useful in phenom research. Gerlese Akerlind says it is ok though for PhD study. I shared
findings with participants
– Development as a phenom. interviewer, over prepared, progressively more organic, pilot also helped.
• Directions of study
– Testing framework
– Case study free data collection
– Facilitator experience
133. Resources used
• Murray, R. (2003)How to survive your viva, Maidenhead, Phil: Open
University Press
• 13 steps I took to prepare for my viva
http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/phd-viva-preparation-steps
• Top 40 potential viva questions
http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156
• Top 10 questions for the oral PhD viva https://medium.com/advice-
and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/top-ten-questions-for-
the-phd-oral-exam-c3687cc75962
• SWOTting up http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/
• Loughborough PhD Social and Support Network http://www.lboro-
phd-network.org.uk/links/the-viva/
135. Initial survey,
19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey,
3 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(data collection method)
Pool 1
Course
4 categories of
description
Pool 3 Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 2
Boundary crossing
4 categories of
description
Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)
Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2
#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+
Surveys
findings
Two surveys (background
information,
demographics)
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
RQ1
and
RQ2
Disc.
Open-
ness in
HE
Digital
tech and
frame-
works
Learning
with
others in
groups
Academic
development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning
p.105
136. 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)
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)
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
p.201
137. Learner engagement patterns
Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator
• 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
• Process
• Some asynchronous group activities
• Sporadic synchronous group activities
• Light touch facilitation
• Social relationships, community
• Regular asynchronous group activities
• Regular synchronous activities
• Regularly facilitation (push – pull)
• 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
p.237 framework developed
138. Pool of
Meanings
Categories of description Variations Codes
used in
the
outcome
space
5.2 Pool 1
(Course)
Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientation
Aiding participation
C1.1
Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagement
Fostering engagement
C1.2
Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instruction
Directive and controlling
Facilitative and supportive
C1.3
Open learning as designed for collaboration Constraining
Enabling
Empowering
C1.4
5.3 Pool 2
(Boundary
crossing)
Cross-boundary learning through modes of
participation
As a valued informal learning experience
As a valued mixed mode learning
experience
As a valued opportunity for recognition
C2.1
Cross-boundary learning through time, places and
space
As a disconnected experience
As a continuum
C2.2
Cross-boundary learning through culture and
language
As a barrier
As an enrichment C2.3
Cross-boundary learning through diverse
professional contexts
As initial discomfort
As a catalyst
C2.4
5.4 Pool 3
(Collaboration)
Collaboration as engagement in learning Selective
Immersive
C3.1
Collaboration as a means to shared product
creation
Product-process tension
Fulfilling C3.2
Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of others
Valuing the presence of others
C3.3
p.162
139. 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)
Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-
institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning
staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015),
unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries,
informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language,
overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity
helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)
6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)
Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker.
Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work,
increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation
brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology
steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller
(2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.
6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)
Varied opportunities for engagement, outside course
boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media
worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-
enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White
& Le Cornu, 2011)
6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)
Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner
choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this.
Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors
(White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave,
Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice.
Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small
groups
6.1.3 Learners as community
Social engagement esp for immersive collab important,
sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech,
confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison,
Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social
interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson
1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron comm
important for relationship building (video link).
6.2.3 Course as community
Especially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing
CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl.
Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on
community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes
build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little
OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)
140. Theoretical framework
Open education
Academic development
Collaborative learning
Technology-
supported
frameworks
Cross-
boundary
Collaborative
open
learning
“learning from
collaboration” +
“process goals”
(Dillenbourg,
1999)
Democratising
open ed
(Lane, 2009)
“little OER”
(Weller, 2011)
Proactive
external CPD
(Crawford,
2009)
community of
inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer,
2000, 2010)
cognitive, social,
facilitator
presence,
belonging,
facilitator support
(=growing
importance)
Gap: collaboration as a
process, especially in the
context of open ed
Gap: more inclusive models
needed (Lane, 2009);
scaffolding (McAuley et al.,
2010); cross-institutional,
cross-boundary (Hall and
Smyth, 2016)
Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative learning & teaching (2014); more outwards
facing CPD (Craword, 2009); harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a; Redecker et al.
2011)
Community building ac dev model restricted to internal (Popovic & Plank, 2016)
Gap: NO framework for
collaborative learning in
open ed. EE opening-up
framework mentions cross-
institutional collaboration
and collab learning BUT no
details how. (Inamorato de
Santos, 2016)
Boundary crossing in learning and expertise in
teams & networks: Finland US, horizontal
practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse
views (Engeström, Engeström & Kärkkäinen,
1995)
Public facing open scholar > informal open
communities (child welfare community
observed divide academia, public, subject
communities FB) (Coughlan & Perryman, 2012)
HE application: boundary objects animal
slaughtering> diversity, increase trust, reduce
misunderstandings, misinterpretations can
occur and conflict , strategies to overcome
these important (Algers, 2016)
141. What developments have there been
in the field since you began your PhD?
• Sustainability of open ed discussed more, also at OE Global Cape Town 2017 (not in thesis, my
focus was on experience) Extensive funding a few years ago, but what is happening with projects
after funding stops?
• More open ed research since 2010, still very new discipline (Weller et al. 2017) more advocacy
research, holistic research missing
• The need to democratise of open education, Global North + Global South – still a gap, imperialistic
approach
• Resources > Practices > Communities ALSO open textbooks
• MOOCs open > commercialisation > closed > professional training
• Open > boundary crossing (Connected Curriculum work by (Dilly Fung, 2017 OER mentioned once,
no mention of open education at all, focus on inquiry-based learning); Porous University (Ronald
Macintyre, 2017)
• 2016 new book around Ac Development (Baume and Popovic) Models of ac development (Popovic
and Plank (2017) chapter> ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-
based’ NOT about open, not about external or cross-institutional, focus still on the institution
• More discussion about open pedagogy especially 2017 (David Wiley, Martin Weller, 2017) but still
ill defined usually on the use of OER, theory and practice not brought together
• Mainstreaming OER mainly but also open education
• Discussion around digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu) continues, new article August
2017 focus on mapping activity and how this is helping practitioners to discuss and review their
digital practices
Editor's Notes
This is all in Chapter 3 case study selections
Collective case study approach used (Stake, 1995) because…
Patton (2002) states that it is common to use purposeful sampling in phenomenography. It provides information rich to a specific research.
The use of a selection of case studies to collect data can be seen as such.
About case studies (Stake, 1995) says that studying different cases in different settings helps understand complexity of the phenomenon, as a collective > this is also relevant and important in phenomenography and increased trustworthiness and reliability (Collier-Reed, 2009, Sin, 2010)
The case study approach is a naturalist inquiry (Yin, 1994, Cousin, 2009, Punch, 2014) with a focus on the lived experience in diverse settings, how it is described and shared holistically and variation of the experience > this is in line with phenomenography
Version 6 June 2017
77% (17) learnt in groups
25 Jan 2017
For Ch 6
CHANGES
Learning engagement patterns
Selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
Learning need
Methodological limitation (bracketing and double role researcher, facilitator/course designer, lone researcher)
Limitations of study after completion (above on slide)
Further research (testing framework, collab learning in other settings, self-organised)
Gained deeper insight into the specific cases (Punch, 2014)
Methodological limitation (bracketing and double role researcher, facilitator/course designer, lone researcher)
Limitations of study after completion (above on slide)
Further research (testing framework, collab learning in other settings, self-organised)
Read about activity theory…
Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education, more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources, highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
Coughlan, T. & Perryman, L., 2012. Reaching out with OER: the new role of public-facing open scholar. eLearning Papers, 31. Accessed from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35934/1/In-depth_31_1.pdf on 4th November 2016]
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2014. When two worlds don’t collide: can social curation address the marginalisation of open educational practices and resources from outside academia? Journal of interactive media in education, 2014(2), article no. 3. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/41629/1/344-2731-1-PB.pdf on 10th of May 2015.
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2013. The realities of ‘reaching out’: enacting the public-facing open scholar role with existing online communities. Journal of interactive media in education, 2013(3) article no. 21. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/39100/ on 10th of May 2015.
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 on 30th January 2017.
Popovic, C. & Plank, K., 2016. Managing and leading change. Models and practices. In: Baume, D. & Popovic, S., eds., 2016. Advancing practice in academic development. Oxon: Routledge, pp.207-224.
Popovic and Plank’s (2016) models of academic development practice. These models are the ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-based’ models.
Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)> cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based), interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors > motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)
Version 6 June 2017
World view>>> epistemology = subjectivism for me = subjective experience of the world > How our world is constructed
Theoretical perspective = phenomenology > individual thought about x (x constructed by each person consciousness) > how we think about the world
How we explore the world views = phenomenographic subjectivist perspective = individual lived experience > How we experience the world
Epistemology > How we construct our world > subjectivism = the experience of the world is subjective
Theoretical perspective > How we think about the world > phenomenological research = how we think about the phenomena???
Methodology > How we study the world > interpretivist phenomenographic subjectivist perspective = study of the lived experience
Sweden > Australia > UK less
Very useful article https://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/oxfordlearninginstitute/documents/supportresources/lecturersteachingstaff/resources/resources/Student_Approaches_to_Learning.pdf
“Phenomenography is a research method for mapping the qualitatively differentt ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them.” (Marton, 1981, 31)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Barnard2/publication/12743309_Phenomenography_A_Qualitative_Research_Approach_for_Exploring_Understanding_in_Health_Care/links/00b49527986031bc39000000.pdf
Phenomology: researcher experience, first order
Phenomenography: experience of others, second order
Grounded theory? Similarities with phenomenography. Data provide the foundations for theory construction. <Glasser and Strauss, 1965)>http://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335244492.pdf > categories of meaning are constructed, wide range of data collection methods including observation, focus groups, diary etc.
Ethnography? But not the study of conception about culture and tells a story
Phenomenography creates a classification
25 Jan 2017
For Ch 6
I could rename collaborator > collaboration
Learning engagement patterns: Selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
Learning needs: selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
WHY this change? To avoid the learning styles issue, putting people into boxes, show that it is not about the individual
Dilly Fung book >>> link to open education missing for me. Focus on students. What about staff? Link to boundary crossing for the curriculum, society mentioned. But staff will need to develop capacity in this area of learning. How?
Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education, more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources, highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)> cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based), interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors > motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)
77% (17) learnt in groups
25 Jan 2017
For Ch 6
For Ch 6
Version 6 June 2017
25 Jan 2017
I could rename collaborator > collaboration
Learning engagement patterns: Selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
Learning needs: selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
WHY this change? To avoid the learning styles issue, putting people into boxes, show that it is not about the individual
For Ch 6
Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education, more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources, highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
Coughlan, T. & Perryman, L., 2012. Reaching out with OER: the new role of public-facing open scholar. eLearning Papers, 31. Accessed from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35934/1/In-depth_31_1.pdf on 4th November 2016]
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2014. When two worlds don’t collide: can social curation address the marginalisation of open educational practices and resources from outside academia? Journal of interactive media in education, 2014(2), article no. 3. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/41629/1/344-2731-1-PB.pdf on 10th of May 2015.
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2013. The realities of ‘reaching out’: enacting the public-facing open scholar role with existing online communities. Journal of interactive media in education, 2013(3) article no. 21. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/39100/ on 10th of May 2015.
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 on 30th January 2017.
Popovic, C. & Plank, K., 2016. Managing and leading change. Models and practices. In: Baume, D. & Popovic, S., eds., 2016. Advancing practice in academic development. Oxon: Routledge, pp.207-224.
Popovic and Plank’s (2016) models of academic development practice. These models are the ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-based’ models.
Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)> cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based), interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors > motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)
Dilly Fung book >>> link to open education missing for me. Focus on students. What about staff? Link to boundary crossing for the curriculum, society mentioned. But staff will need to develop capacity in this area of learning. How?
25 Jan 2017
I could rename collaborator > collaboration
Learning engagement patterns: Selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
Learning needs: selective collaboration, immersive collaboration
WHY this change? To avoid the learning styles issue, putting people into boxes, show that it is not about the individual
Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education, more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources, highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
Coughlan, T. & Perryman, L., 2012. Reaching out with OER: the new role of public-facing open scholar. eLearning Papers, 31. Accessed from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35934/1/In-depth_31_1.pdf on 4th November 2016]
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2014. When two worlds don’t collide: can social curation address the marginalisation of open educational practices and resources from outside academia? Journal of interactive media in education, 2014(2), article no. 3. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/41629/1/344-2731-1-PB.pdf on 10th of May 2015.
Perryman, L.-A. & Coughlan, T. 2013. The realities of ‘reaching out’: enacting the public-facing open scholar role with existing online communities. Journal of interactive media in education, 2013(3) article no. 21. Accessed online from http://oro.open.ac.uk/39100/ on 10th of May 2015.
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 on 30th January 2017.
Popovic, C. & Plank, K., 2016. Managing and leading change. Models and practices. In: Baume, D. & Popovic, S., eds., 2016. Advancing practice in academic development. Oxon: Routledge, pp.207-224.
Popovic and Plank’s (2016) models of academic development practice. These models are the ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-based’ models.
Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)> cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based), interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors > motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)
Why this topic?
What lead you to conceptual journey in the literature? How did you choose these areas?
Social constructivism is in the discussion, where does it sit in the literature?
Karen Crawford’s work has a focus on disciplinary communities.
Was there a gap in the literature? Where does your work sit?
Who is the audience?
Did you use another researcher to do the analysis?
How did you feel you have learnt to be a phenomenographer?
The courses where innovative etc. What about the study participants?
Did you consider other approaches before settling on phenomenography?
Tell us a bit more about the Pools of meaning.
How did you arrive at the outcome space? What are the relationships between structural factors and the lived experience? Is the lived experience referential?
How do you account for affective elements in your outcomes?
Why did you choose to present your work as a collective case study? What alternatives did you consider? Why did you reject?
Immersive and selective collaborators are these orientations? Patterns?
Why is the framework so important? What will people take away from it? Talk us through it. Are you pleased with it?
How does the work around child welfare and animal slaughter link to your work?
Have you checked the framework out with the community?
What about boundary crossing? Did it prompt you to look at different concepts?
Animal slaughter study, child welfare study. Why did you include these in the literature review?
Question reg language and words being used commonly but with different meanings?
Academic development to an outside, what is that all about?
Is selective and immersive collaboration particular to online only?
There are some suggestions in the thesis but what is next for you?
Have you published? What are you planning to publish?
How will you disseminate further?
Is there anything you would like to add/ask us?