University of Minnesota
Learning Technologies
Current technological affordances and a deeper understanding of the nature of teaching and learning have the potential to revolutionize education from every angle, including the learner experience, the instructional design, and the... more
Current technological affordances and a deeper understanding of the nature of teaching and learning have the potential to revolutionize education from every angle, including the learner experience, the instructional design, and the pedagogy. Borrowing from Van Merriënboer and Kirschner's (2001) conceptualization of instructional design, we propose three worldviews of online learning reflecting historical and epistemological differences in higher education: World of Knowledge, World of Connections, and finally, World of Openness. We discuss contemporary initiatives and future possibilities for instructional design and propose a conceptual understanding of our roles as conversation designers.
- by Suzan Koseoglu and +1
- •
- E-learning, Distance Education
In this conceptual paper, we seek ways to integrate design-based research into online higher education contexts. Our goal is to promote participatory, formative, and strategic approaches to evaluation and research methods in online... more
In this conceptual paper, we seek ways to integrate design-based research into online higher education contexts. Our goal is to promote participatory, formative, and strategic approaches to evaluation and research methods in online education. In this paper, we will review the history and basic principles of design-based research, discuss its benefits and limitations, and then propose a new research framework for investigating positive cases of the effective design of online learning environments.
Abstract: The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) framework is increasingly used in teacher education programs as a measure to examine the growth of pre-service and in-service teacher... more
Abstract: The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) framework is increasingly used in teacher education programs as a measure to examine the growth of pre-service and in-service teacher knowledge. In this study, we focus on improving evaluation methods that are compatible with the conceptual framing of TPACK. The scenario-based survey method we used seems to be promising in examining changes in teachers' planning and problem-solving skills with technology, especially if researchers need to evaluate the effectiveness of large-scale teacher education programs in limited time frames and resources. We outline the assumptions that guide our study, discuss our findings, and critically analyze the research method used. Limitations of the study are also noted.
In this case study, I present an interpretive exploration of five open participants' learning experiences in a massive open online course (MOOC), which was offered by a higher education institute in the United States as a general... more
In this case study, I present an interpretive exploration of five open participants' learning experiences in a massive open online course (MOOC), which was offered by a higher education institute in the United States as a general education course in research writing. There were two types of enrolment in the course: formal (students who enrolled in the course for credit, six sections) and informal (open participants). Open participants had access to the public activities of the learning community, but they did not receive any academic certification, evaluation, or grading from the instructors.
Blogging was central to all educational activity in the course. Learners and instructors openly blogged during the course and beyond in response to the class assignments and on other areas of interest. In this study, participant blogs are conceptualized as social spaces created by a multitude of interactions (e.g., with content, instructors, other learners, the imagined audience). These spaces were the starting point for the researcher to examine five open participants' learning activities in the course. Primary data collection methods included interviews, participant observations, and document and artefact analysis. Thematic analysis of data illustrates how open participants participated in the course in multifaceted and unique ways and created third spaces of learning—spaces that are neither informal nor formal and that create opportunities for learning to occur in emergent and authentic ways (Cronin, 2014; Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). These spaces were possible because learners' informal identities, skills, and networks were welcomed into formal learning and capitalized on as important learning resources.
I present two typologies that point to the self-directed and authentic nature of open participation within those spaces: (1) open participants created unique course histories through their blogs, (2) open participants did not follow the formal learning path. These findings suggest that the traditional markers of success in formal education (e.g., sustained engagement, course completion, directly measurable outcome) might be insufficient to frame participants' involvement in open online courses. The diversity in learner goals and roles calls for a need to shift the focus of open online courses from the end product to the learning process and challenges formal narratives of success and failure in open online courses.
Blogging was central to all educational activity in the course. Learners and instructors openly blogged during the course and beyond in response to the class assignments and on other areas of interest. In this study, participant blogs are conceptualized as social spaces created by a multitude of interactions (e.g., with content, instructors, other learners, the imagined audience). These spaces were the starting point for the researcher to examine five open participants' learning activities in the course. Primary data collection methods included interviews, participant observations, and document and artefact analysis. Thematic analysis of data illustrates how open participants participated in the course in multifaceted and unique ways and created third spaces of learning—spaces that are neither informal nor formal and that create opportunities for learning to occur in emergent and authentic ways (Cronin, 2014; Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). These spaces were possible because learners' informal identities, skills, and networks were welcomed into formal learning and capitalized on as important learning resources.
I present two typologies that point to the self-directed and authentic nature of open participation within those spaces: (1) open participants created unique course histories through their blogs, (2) open participants did not follow the formal learning path. These findings suggest that the traditional markers of success in formal education (e.g., sustained engagement, course completion, directly measurable outcome) might be insufficient to frame participants' involvement in open online courses. The diversity in learner goals and roles calls for a need to shift the focus of open online courses from the end product to the learning process and challenges formal narratives of success and failure in open online courses.
Despite the rapid growth of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in recent years, a fundamental question is still being debated widely in the education community: how to design and deliver MOOCs and move them away from the banking model of... more
Despite the rapid growth of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in recent years, a fundamental question is still being debated widely in the education community: how to design and deliver MOOCs and move them away from the banking model of education (Freire, 1974), in which the teacher has traditionally been the central authority. Our goal in this paper is to improve the MOOC pedagogy through the lens of teaching presence. We argue that teaching presence is much more than just a facilitation strategy; rather, teaching presence is about creating a meaningful and receptive relationship between and among learners. To accomplish this we propose that instead of a single facilitative role there is a diversity in teacher roles. Teachers can themselves become learners in their own classrooms, as well as enabling and encouraging learners also take on the role of teachers in this open learning process. This leads us to propose the notion of hybrid presence, a construct that emerges out of authentic relationships among esteemed co-learners (Rheingold, 2014) in an open educational environment. This hybrid presence is particularly evident in community-based MOOCs. To aid in the design and facilitation of such MOOCs we propose three interrelated learning design principles aligning with the notion of hybrid presence: prepare to cede authority, embrace plasticity, and be present with fellow learners.
All the learning design principles we propose highlight approaches that are responsive to the affordances of connectivity and diversity on the World Wide Web. In the first principle cede authority we suggest that MOOC instructors see themselves as conveners of MOOCs, and that they see the learners as co-learners in their educational journey. The second principle embrace plasticity draws attention to the importance of being receptive and responsive to the direction and nature of learner voices in distributed networks. Finally, in the last principle be present with fellow learners we suggest using tools that foster mutual empathy and awareness for both learners and teachers to be present in the environment in authentic ways. Each principle is illustrated with specific examples from different types of community-based MOOCs, such as Change11 MOOC, Rhizomatic Learning, MobiMOOC 2011, and UNIV 200: Inquiry and the Craft of Argument.
All the learning design principles we propose highlight approaches that are responsive to the affordances of connectivity and diversity on the World Wide Web. In the first principle cede authority we suggest that MOOC instructors see themselves as conveners of MOOCs, and that they see the learners as co-learners in their educational journey. The second principle embrace plasticity draws attention to the importance of being receptive and responsive to the direction and nature of learner voices in distributed networks. Finally, in the last principle be present with fellow learners we suggest using tools that foster mutual empathy and awareness for both learners and teachers to be present in the environment in authentic ways. Each principle is illustrated with specific examples from different types of community-based MOOCs, such as Change11 MOOC, Rhizomatic Learning, MobiMOOC 2011, and UNIV 200: Inquiry and the Craft of Argument.
The Self as an Open Educational Resource Most discourse on open educational resources (OER) revolve around issues with access to educational content, which may include “full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming... more
The Self as an Open Educational Resource
Most discourse on open educational resources (OER) revolve around issues with access to educational content, which may include “full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge” (The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2015). However, such common definitions of OER overlook an important educational resource in the formal education system: teachers/facilitators and learners, in other words, the learning community itself. Thus, we propose a broader understanding of OER, which includes the processes and products of open scholarship as valuable resources. Here, building on Veletsianos and Kimmons’s (2013) work, we define open scholarship as any teaching, learning, and research practices that are public and that "espouse openness" (p. 167). A few important questions come to mind when we consider open scholarship as a distinct form of OER:
How might the processes and products of open scholarship align/intersect with the goals of open education?
What might the 5Rs of open education (Wiley, 2009; Wiley, 2014)—reuse, revise, remix, redistribute, and retain—mean in the context of open scholarship?
What are some ethical considerations in using and repurposing the traces of open scholarship?
We acknowledge the fact that not all educators may want to position their open educational practices as resources for others to use. However, simply by engaging in public activities (e.g., blogging, Tweeting) we open ourselves to an authentic audience where our work and ideas “can be read, viewed, used, shared, critiqued and built upon by others" (Cronin, 2014, p. 408). Thus, the complex interplay and overlapping of the imagined and authentic audiences suggest that anyone can be “a human OER” (Funes, 2014) intentionally or unintentionally.
In this session, we will critically explore these issues in the context of our own research and open educational practices. Suzan will particularly focus on the ethics of using and repurposing the products of open scholarship. Maha will refer to specific practices she undertook as facilitator of open educational learning experiences, as an open researcher, and as an open teacher. Implications on educational research and open educational practices will be also discussed.
References
Catherine, C. (2014). Networked learning and identity development in open online spaces. In: 9th International Conference on Networked Learning. [Online] Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, p.408. Available at: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2014/abstracts/pdf/cronin.pdf [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
Funes, M. (2014). A human OER. [Blog] doublemirror. Available at: http://mdvfunes.com/2014/10/22/a-human-oer/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2015). Open educational resources. [Online] Available at: http://www.hewlett.org/programs/education/open-educational-resources. [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. (2014). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), p.167.
Wiley, D. (2009). Defining “open.” [Blog] iterating toward openness. Available at: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1123 [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
Most discourse on open educational resources (OER) revolve around issues with access to educational content, which may include “full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge” (The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2015). However, such common definitions of OER overlook an important educational resource in the formal education system: teachers/facilitators and learners, in other words, the learning community itself. Thus, we propose a broader understanding of OER, which includes the processes and products of open scholarship as valuable resources. Here, building on Veletsianos and Kimmons’s (2013) work, we define open scholarship as any teaching, learning, and research practices that are public and that "espouse openness" (p. 167). A few important questions come to mind when we consider open scholarship as a distinct form of OER:
How might the processes and products of open scholarship align/intersect with the goals of open education?
What might the 5Rs of open education (Wiley, 2009; Wiley, 2014)—reuse, revise, remix, redistribute, and retain—mean in the context of open scholarship?
What are some ethical considerations in using and repurposing the traces of open scholarship?
We acknowledge the fact that not all educators may want to position their open educational practices as resources for others to use. However, simply by engaging in public activities (e.g., blogging, Tweeting) we open ourselves to an authentic audience where our work and ideas “can be read, viewed, used, shared, critiqued and built upon by others" (Cronin, 2014, p. 408). Thus, the complex interplay and overlapping of the imagined and authentic audiences suggest that anyone can be “a human OER” (Funes, 2014) intentionally or unintentionally.
In this session, we will critically explore these issues in the context of our own research and open educational practices. Suzan will particularly focus on the ethics of using and repurposing the products of open scholarship. Maha will refer to specific practices she undertook as facilitator of open educational learning experiences, as an open researcher, and as an open teacher. Implications on educational research and open educational practices will be also discussed.
References
Catherine, C. (2014). Networked learning and identity development in open online spaces. In: 9th International Conference on Networked Learning. [Online] Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, p.408. Available at: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2014/abstracts/pdf/cronin.pdf [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
Funes, M. (2014). A human OER. [Blog] doublemirror. Available at: http://mdvfunes.com/2014/10/22/a-human-oer/ [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2015). Open educational resources. [Online] Available at: http://www.hewlett.org/programs/education/open-educational-resources. [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. (2014). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), p.167.
Wiley, D. (2009). Defining “open.” [Blog] iterating toward openness. Available at: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/1123 [Accessed 26 Nov. 2015].
In this case study, I present an interpretive exploration of five open participants' learning experiences in a massive open online course (MOOC), which was offered by a higher education institute in the United States as a general... more
In this case study, I present an interpretive exploration of five open participants' learning experiences in a massive open online course (MOOC), which was offered by a higher education institute in the United States as a general education course in research writing. There were two types of enrollment in the course: formal (students who enrolled in the course for credit, six sections) and informal (open participants). Open participants had access to the public activities of the learning community, but they did not receive any academic certification, evaluation, or grading from the instructors.
Blogging was central to all educational activity in the course. In this study, participant blogs are conceptualized as social spaces created by a multitude of interactions (e.g., with content, instructors, other learners, the imagined audience). These spaces were the starting point for the researcher to examine five open participants’ learning activities in the course. Primary data sources were participant blogs, semi-structured interviews, and a case study journal with analytic reflections. Secondary data sources included participant observations, course documents and artifacts (e.g. the syllabus, course videos), and the course Twitter feed. Thematic analysis of data illustrates how open participants participated in the course in multifaceted and unique ways and created third spaces of learning—spaces that are neither informal or formal and that create opportunities for learning to occur in emergent and authentic ways (Cronin, 2014; Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). These spaces were possible because learners' informal identities, skills, and networks were welcomed into formal learning and capitalized on as important learning resources.
I present three typologies that point to the self-directed and authentic nature of open participation within those spaces: (1) open participants created unique course histories through their blogs, (2) open participants did not follow the formal learning path, (3) instances of meaningful learning were visible at different times in the course and beyond. These findings led me to strongly align with scholars who suggest that the traditional markers of success in formal education (e.g., sustained engagement, course completion, directly measurable outcome) are insufficient to frame participants’ involvement in open online courses. The diversity in learner goals and roles calls for a need to shift the focus of open online courses from the end product to the learning process and challenges formal narratives of success and failure in open online courses.
I particularly highlight the contextual and shifting nature of openness and argue that it is crucial for learners to be aware of and develop open literacies, which I define as the skills and attitudes needed for successfully navigating and participating in open online spaces. The three design principles I offer—(1) give voice to the authentic self, (2) recognize the contextual nature of openness, and (3) be cognizant of multiple layers of digital literacies, such as open and networked literacies—might be of interest to anyone interested in designing open online courses as spaces for individual and collective dialogue.
Blogging was central to all educational activity in the course. In this study, participant blogs are conceptualized as social spaces created by a multitude of interactions (e.g., with content, instructors, other learners, the imagined audience). These spaces were the starting point for the researcher to examine five open participants’ learning activities in the course. Primary data sources were participant blogs, semi-structured interviews, and a case study journal with analytic reflections. Secondary data sources included participant observations, course documents and artifacts (e.g. the syllabus, course videos), and the course Twitter feed. Thematic analysis of data illustrates how open participants participated in the course in multifaceted and unique ways and created third spaces of learning—spaces that are neither informal or formal and that create opportunities for learning to occur in emergent and authentic ways (Cronin, 2014; Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). These spaces were possible because learners' informal identities, skills, and networks were welcomed into formal learning and capitalized on as important learning resources.
I present three typologies that point to the self-directed and authentic nature of open participation within those spaces: (1) open participants created unique course histories through their blogs, (2) open participants did not follow the formal learning path, (3) instances of meaningful learning were visible at different times in the course and beyond. These findings led me to strongly align with scholars who suggest that the traditional markers of success in formal education (e.g., sustained engagement, course completion, directly measurable outcome) are insufficient to frame participants’ involvement in open online courses. The diversity in learner goals and roles calls for a need to shift the focus of open online courses from the end product to the learning process and challenges formal narratives of success and failure in open online courses.
I particularly highlight the contextual and shifting nature of openness and argue that it is crucial for learners to be aware of and develop open literacies, which I define as the skills and attitudes needed for successfully navigating and participating in open online spaces. The three design principles I offer—(1) give voice to the authentic self, (2) recognize the contextual nature of openness, and (3) be cognizant of multiple layers of digital literacies, such as open and networked literacies—might be of interest to anyone interested in designing open online courses as spaces for individual and collective dialogue.
The proliferation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is no doubt one of the most talked about and debated educational phenomena of this past decade (e.g., Friedman, 2012; Hyman, 2012; Yuan & Powell, 2013), and it is at the core of... more
The proliferation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is no doubt one of the most talked about and debated educational phenomena of this past decade (e.g., Friedman, 2012; Hyman, 2012; Yuan & Powell, 2013), and it is at the core of many of these discussions where we situate our argument. The hype surrounding MOOCs pushes educators to think critically about the purposes and structures of traditional education, both residential and online; structures which some types of MOOC of this time period are replicating. In addition, open online courses are remarkably easy to access, providing a free educational opportunity for anyone who has the resources and skills necessary to participate in a networked environment. The disruptive, or revolutionary, potential of MOOCs in higher are often tied to notions of educational equity. However, as Farmer (2013) argued, there is not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that MOOCs "are a '[d]isruptive [i]nnovation' that will resolve issues of access and cost" in higher education. First, as Bali (2014) noted, MOOCs are " the next logical step " in the evolving landscape of online education (p. 44), which is important to consider in our discussions on the potential and future of MOOCs. We believe ignoring this opens the doors to misinterpretation of the MOOC phenomenon (i.e., the hype about MOOCs) and misinforms the potential trajectories of open online courses. Second, classifying MOOCs as a single entity is problematic, as there are significant variations in MOOCs in terms of educational vision and overall course structure (Bali, 2014; Bayne & Ross, 2014; Ross, Sinclair, Knox, Bayne & Macleod, 2014). Third, we argue that issues of access and equity cannot be addressed simply by putting free content on the web. In order for learners to benefit from this educational opportunity, to be full participants, and to take advantage of these free offerings, they need, at the very least, to have a certain level of proficiency in various literacies, and to be self-motivated. These are, by and large, traits generally acquired through formal education. Finally, there is a need to further examine the meaning of disruption in education. We argue that real change in education is a collective effort that evolves as a result of the interaction between social, economic, political, and cultural realities of a society or community. In other words, education as a public good is not as flexible a domain as consumer products or services to be "disrupted" as a result of a single action, product, or philosophy (Kim, 2010; Knoll, 2009). Instead, we propose to direct our attention to innovations that are much smaller in scale: pedagogical innovations that may go unnoticed in everyday practice. We believe the future success of open online courses lies in how well we foster meaningful and memorable learning experiences through effective pedagogies and learning design. Yet, as Bayne and Ross (2014) argued, " [pedagogy] has been noticeably under-represented " in the MOOC discourse (p. 4). Furthermore, teachers' roles in MOOCs are " both significant and neglected " (2014, p. 18). In this chapter, we build on Bayne and Ross's (2014) call for a need to focus on MOOC pedagogy as a highly visible, demanding, situated, and emergent practice by examining and building from the construct of teaching presence. We start from looking at teaching presence as creating a meaningful and receptive relationship with learners. We also place a spotlight on the diversity of teacher roles in openly networked environments. We then discuss the notion of " learners as teachers " and how this reframing calls for a reconsideration of these two distinct presences: learner presence and teacher presence. Reconsidering these two, we then add to this a third presence that
Bonnie Stewart, a researcher at University of Prince Edward Island, Canada, sat down with eLearn Magazine to discuss openness in education, scholarship, and Antigonish 2.0.
- by Aras Bozkurt and +1
- •
- Digital scholarship
" What stories, what names, what struggles, do you wish to add to enable a more democratic education to be built? " asks Apple in his seminal book Official Knowledge [1]. It is this question that drives this research into collective... more
" What stories, what names, what struggles, do you wish to add to enable a more democratic education to be built? " asks Apple in his seminal book Official Knowledge [1]. It is this question that drives this research into collective educational narratives and acts of resistance on Twitter. By resistance we mean an attitude that rejects colonial, strictly behaviourist, androcentric, consumerist and industrialist views in education. Using Tufekci's [2] Capacities and Signals framework, we conceptualise Twitter as a politically charged public space, where educators from all around the world occasionally act against mainstream models and common practices in education through a complex interplay of individual performance, spontaneous interactions with others, and organised structured and semi-structured events. The context of this mixed methods research is #DigPed activities during three Digital Pedagogy Lab events: Digital Pedagogy Lab Cairo (March 20-22, 2016), Digital Pedagogy Lab PEI (July 13-15, 2016), and Digital Pedagogy Lab 2017 Summer Institute (August 7-11, 2017). We analyse #DigPed through the lens of the Capacities and Signals framework to understand (1) how educational narratives develop and spread on #DigPed, and (2) the nature of their capacities.
There have been increasingly more discussions on Open Educational Practices (OEPs) in recent years. We conducted a literature review in order to understand (1) the scope and nature of OEPs as documented in the literature, and (2) its... more
There have been increasingly more discussions on Open Educational Practices (OEPs) in recent years. We conducted a literature review in order to understand (1) the scope and nature of OEPs as documented in the literature, and (2) its relationship with OERs. All peer-reviewed articles indexed in the ERIC database, which have open educational practice(s) in their title, abstract, or keywords were sampled through manual data collection and text-mining (Hearst, 2003). In the screening process, researchers reached 37 papers published between 1979 and 2017, and after examining their content, included 36 of them to the research corpus. Of these 36 papers, 35 were journal articles and 1 was a research report.
Preliminary analysis of resources demonstrated two major strands of OEP research in the educational literature: those who explore OEPs in relation to OERs only and, to a lesser extent, those who discuss OEPs in a broader context including networked and open scholarship. The first paper on digital open educational practices was published in 2008 (n = 1) and peak publication points were reached in 2014 (n = 6), 2015 (n= 6) and 2016 (n = 8), which suggests a slow but steady increase in papers related to OEPs. Of all the 91 different keywords that were used in the papers, open educational resource[s] (n = 32), open educational practice[s] (n = 27), higher education (n = 5), professional development (n = 4), open education (n = 3) and public open scholar (n = 3) were the most frequently used ones. During the session, common trends and patterns based on geographical location, source and education level will also be discussed.
Based on the findings, and building on the works of Ehlers (2011) and Mays (2017), we call for a need to conceptualise open education as a pluralistic model that embrace open educational practices as a pedagogical approach. The result of this relationship can be artefacts such as OERs and MOOCs; however, using Cronin’s (2017) four dimensions of open shared by open educators, we can possibly see implications in “closed” settings as well. We also argue that although many practices such as teaching a MOOC or becoming an active member of an educational hashtag community are examples of OEPs, as a descriptor, the term itself is under-recognized in the broader educational literature.
Preliminary analysis of resources demonstrated two major strands of OEP research in the educational literature: those who explore OEPs in relation to OERs only and, to a lesser extent, those who discuss OEPs in a broader context including networked and open scholarship. The first paper on digital open educational practices was published in 2008 (n = 1) and peak publication points were reached in 2014 (n = 6), 2015 (n= 6) and 2016 (n = 8), which suggests a slow but steady increase in papers related to OEPs. Of all the 91 different keywords that were used in the papers, open educational resource[s] (n = 32), open educational practice[s] (n = 27), higher education (n = 5), professional development (n = 4), open education (n = 3) and public open scholar (n = 3) were the most frequently used ones. During the session, common trends and patterns based on geographical location, source and education level will also be discussed.
Based on the findings, and building on the works of Ehlers (2011) and Mays (2017), we call for a need to conceptualise open education as a pluralistic model that embrace open educational practices as a pedagogical approach. The result of this relationship can be artefacts such as OERs and MOOCs; however, using Cronin’s (2017) four dimensions of open shared by open educators, we can possibly see implications in “closed” settings as well. We also argue that although many practices such as teaching a MOOC or becoming an active member of an educational hashtag community are examples of OEPs, as a descriptor, the term itself is under-recognized in the broader educational literature.
This mixed methods study addresses a knowledge gap in the nature and effects of networked scholarship. We analyze #DigPed, a Twitter hashtag on critical pedagogy, through the lens of Tufekci's capacities and signals framework in order to... more
This mixed methods study addresses a knowledge gap in the nature and effects of networked scholarship. We analyze #DigPed, a Twitter hashtag on critical pedagogy, through the lens of Tufekci's capacities and signals framework in order to understand how educational narratives develop and spread on #DigPed. Using social network analysis and thematic analysis of content, we identify three prominent narratives in the network and discuss the network structures from a critical perspective. Based on the findings, we propose pedagogic capacity— the power to initiate a productive and potentially transformative educational discourse, within oneself and within communities—as an additional lens to explore the spread and impact of critical narratives in education. Findings confirm the view that networked spaces are organized by hidden hierarchies marked by influence.
- by Suzan Koseoglu and +1
- •
- Critical Pedagogy, Digital Pedagogy
This interview about openness in education was conducted with Martin Weller by Suzan Koseoglu and Aras Bozkurt. Weller is a Professor of Educational Technology at the Open University (UK) and the president of The Association for Learning... more
This interview about openness in education was conducted with Martin Weller by Suzan Koseoglu and Aras Bozkurt. Weller is a Professor of Educational Technology at the Open University (UK) and the president of The Association for Learning Technology. A prominent figure in the move toward opening up education, Weller has published many articles and four books on topics related to open and online education, including The Digital Scholar and The Battle for Open.
- by Suzan Koseoglu and +1
- •
- Open Education
This paper presents a review of peer-reviewed publications (2007– 2017) on digital open educational practices (OEPs). It explores 10 trends and patterns in this emerging area of study by examining paper abstracts and bibliographic data... more
This paper presents a review of peer-reviewed publications (2007– 2017) on digital open educational practices (OEPs). It explores 10 trends and patterns in this emerging area of study by examining paper abstracts and bibliographic data indexed in the Scopus database using a combination of descriptive statistics, text mining, social network analysis, and content analysis. Findings demonstrated two major strands of OEP research: those who discuss 15 OEP in the context of open educational resources, mostly in terms of open educational resource creation, adoption and use, and those who discuss OEP in relation to other areas, including open scholarship, open learning, open teaching or pedagogy, open systems and architectures, and open source software. 20 Based on the findings of this study and in the light of the broader literature on OEPs, we echo the calls for a need to conceptualize OEPs as a multidimensional and unifying construct.
Openness in education is an evolving concept which is shaped by the changing needs of societies, cultures, geographies, and economies, thus, it does not have a precise definition. By focusing on four sets of generic keywords-open... more
Openness in education is an evolving concept which is shaped by the changing needs of societies, cultures, geographies, and economies, thus, it does not have a precise definition. By focusing on four sets of generic keywords-open education, open learning, open educational resources (OERs), and open educational practices (OEPs)-this paper examines research in openness in education through a systematic review of peer reviewed literature. In doing so, the researchers sought to draw attention to existing trends and patterns and possible future trajectories of openness in education. Content analysis, social network analysis, and text-mining are the methods used for data collection and analysis. Findings show that there has been growing interest on openness in education, particularly on OERs, across different fields. Findings also point to OEPs as an emerging area of study, which offers a fertile ground for future research. However, on closer inspection, a divide can be observed between the global north and global south in terms of research output.
Abstract Our work builds on the project My Story (Bozkurt & Büyük, 2018), which explored the experiences of students enrolled in Anadolu University Open Education Faculty programs. In the project, students were asked to share their... more
Abstract
Our work builds on the project My Story (Bozkurt & Büyük, 2018), which explored the experiences of students enrolled in Anadolu University Open Education Faculty programs. In the project, students were asked to share their stories leading to open and distance learning (ODL) via an online survey. 2700 stories were collected from students studying in higher education programs from a distance. Out of these stories, 70 stories that could inspire other students were curated in an edited book (2018). These narratives demonstrate that, given the right conditions, ODL can be an agent for social justice, as it has the power to break down barriers to education and, consequently, democratize societies.
In this work, we highlight the voices of 16 women in the edited book using found poetry (Patrick, 2016; Prendergast, 2006) as a methodological and pedagogical tool. The approach is useful to show some common threads in the narratives, in particular, the oppression of women in traditional and patriarchal communities. The women in the selected stories have had remarkably similar experiences in their struggle for education, characterized by a never-ending fight for education, strong desire for equal opportunity, and dedication to study amongst childcare, housekeeping and other domestic duties. As the audience hear the struggles and aspirations of the women in their journey to education, what lessons can be drawn for ODL in general, what connections can be made with women in other contexts, and what actions can be taken globally in open education to help women in their shared struggles?
Methodology
The data we collected in this study revealed a powerful, descriptive language in how it portrayed the experiences of the participants. The raw data were in Turkish, and two of the researchers coded and exchanged their findings to identify common themes across the different narratives. While thematically coded as a traditional qualitative analysis, we recognized that the voices of the participants were of such strength that they warranted a more performative explication in keeping with their power and form once they were translated to English. In this way, Research Found Poetry was used to enable the researchers to partner with the data and represent data consistent to the essence of the participant experience being represented (Patrick, 2016; Prendergast, 2006). The words of the participants were poetically presented to both exemplify the thematic findings while remaining true to the power in the texts themselves. In this manner, the researchers adopted a “positionality of artful scientist” (Patrick, 2016, p. 2) by conveying the central messages in a creative expression that utilized the words of the participants through the shared understanding of the researchers (Faulkner, 2007; Lahman et al., 2010; Lahman & Richard, 2014).
The final found poem represents the following themes: (1) the oppression of women in traditional and patriarchal communities, (2) women’s never-ending fight for education, (3) their strong desire for equal opportunity, (4) dedication to study amongst childcare, housekeeping and other domestic duties, (5) experiencing a break from mainstream education due to external pressures/power structures, (6) socio-economic conditions leading to drop out, (7) feelings of confinement, hopelessness, (8) dedication to study in the face of economic struggles, (9) commitment to learning, (10) reaching the goal, success. The Turkish version is linguistically faithful (taken directly from the qualitative data) to participants’ original comments; however, the English version is lightly modified where needed to better convey cultural and contextual meanings.
References
Bozkurt, A., & Büyük, K. (2018). Benim hikayem. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi. ISBN: 978-975-06-3251-8 Available at http://ekitap.anadolu.edu.tr/#bookdetail162516
Faulkner, S. L. (2007). Concern with craft: Using ars poetica as criteria for reading research poetry. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295636
Hurston, Z. N. (1942). Dust tracks on a road. New York: HarperPerennial.
Lahman, M. K. E., Geist, M. R., Rodriguez, K. L., Graglia, P. E., Richard, V. M., & Schendel, R. K. (2010). Poking around poetically: Research, poetry, and trustworthiness. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800409350061
Lahman, M. K. E., & Richard, V. M. (2014). Appropriated poetry: Archival poetry in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413489272
Patrick, L. D. (2016). Found poetry: Creating space for imaginative arts-based literacy research writing. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336916661530
Prendergast, M. (2006). Found poetry as literature review: Research poems on audience and erformance. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284601
Our work builds on the project My Story (Bozkurt & Büyük, 2018), which explored the experiences of students enrolled in Anadolu University Open Education Faculty programs. In the project, students were asked to share their stories leading to open and distance learning (ODL) via an online survey. 2700 stories were collected from students studying in higher education programs from a distance. Out of these stories, 70 stories that could inspire other students were curated in an edited book (2018). These narratives demonstrate that, given the right conditions, ODL can be an agent for social justice, as it has the power to break down barriers to education and, consequently, democratize societies.
In this work, we highlight the voices of 16 women in the edited book using found poetry (Patrick, 2016; Prendergast, 2006) as a methodological and pedagogical tool. The approach is useful to show some common threads in the narratives, in particular, the oppression of women in traditional and patriarchal communities. The women in the selected stories have had remarkably similar experiences in their struggle for education, characterized by a never-ending fight for education, strong desire for equal opportunity, and dedication to study amongst childcare, housekeeping and other domestic duties. As the audience hear the struggles and aspirations of the women in their journey to education, what lessons can be drawn for ODL in general, what connections can be made with women in other contexts, and what actions can be taken globally in open education to help women in their shared struggles?
Methodology
The data we collected in this study revealed a powerful, descriptive language in how it portrayed the experiences of the participants. The raw data were in Turkish, and two of the researchers coded and exchanged their findings to identify common themes across the different narratives. While thematically coded as a traditional qualitative analysis, we recognized that the voices of the participants were of such strength that they warranted a more performative explication in keeping with their power and form once they were translated to English. In this way, Research Found Poetry was used to enable the researchers to partner with the data and represent data consistent to the essence of the participant experience being represented (Patrick, 2016; Prendergast, 2006). The words of the participants were poetically presented to both exemplify the thematic findings while remaining true to the power in the texts themselves. In this manner, the researchers adopted a “positionality of artful scientist” (Patrick, 2016, p. 2) by conveying the central messages in a creative expression that utilized the words of the participants through the shared understanding of the researchers (Faulkner, 2007; Lahman et al., 2010; Lahman & Richard, 2014).
The final found poem represents the following themes: (1) the oppression of women in traditional and patriarchal communities, (2) women’s never-ending fight for education, (3) their strong desire for equal opportunity, (4) dedication to study amongst childcare, housekeeping and other domestic duties, (5) experiencing a break from mainstream education due to external pressures/power structures, (6) socio-economic conditions leading to drop out, (7) feelings of confinement, hopelessness, (8) dedication to study in the face of economic struggles, (9) commitment to learning, (10) reaching the goal, success. The Turkish version is linguistically faithful (taken directly from the qualitative data) to participants’ original comments; however, the English version is lightly modified where needed to better convey cultural and contextual meanings.
References
Bozkurt, A., & Büyük, K. (2018). Benim hikayem. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi. ISBN: 978-975-06-3251-8 Available at http://ekitap.anadolu.edu.tr/#bookdetail162516
Faulkner, S. L. (2007). Concern with craft: Using ars poetica as criteria for reading research poetry. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406295636
Hurston, Z. N. (1942). Dust tracks on a road. New York: HarperPerennial.
Lahman, M. K. E., Geist, M. R., Rodriguez, K. L., Graglia, P. E., Richard, V. M., & Schendel, R. K. (2010). Poking around poetically: Research, poetry, and trustworthiness. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800409350061
Lahman, M. K. E., & Richard, V. M. (2014). Appropriated poetry: Archival poetry in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413489272
Patrick, L. D. (2016). Found poetry: Creating space for imaginative arts-based literacy research writing. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336916661530
Prendergast, M. (2006). Found poetry as literature review: Research poems on audience and erformance. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284601
Description Session Description The group presenting this session was formed through a serendipitous participation in a ‘slow chat’ (#HEdigID) on the topic of OEP. The chat went on long beyond its official end, and we realized that the... more
Description
Session Description
The group presenting this session was formed through a serendipitous participation in a ‘slow chat’ (#HEdigID) on the topic of OEP. The chat went on long beyond its official end, and we realized that the #HEdigID network was larger than we had observed. It included ‘invisible’ participants who were simply listening, or tuning in once in a while. We began to discuss the practice of ‘lurking’ and the idea of ‘the lurker’. The group conversation which followed revealed some of the complexities of lurking behaviours.
What (or who) is a “lurker”? Do we need to rethink what participation means? Why some learners are visible, and others less visible or maybe invisible, remaining on the margins of online and networked learning? Do we need to recenter participation in open spaces – to bring in those who appear to choose to stay on the periphery? It seems there is a need to turn a critical lens onto our assumptions, and think about how ‘privileging the visible’ may constrain and exclude more invisible learners equally interested in learning (Honeychurch et al., 2017; Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C., 2018).
Against a prior emphasis on transmission of knowledge, designing for learning in today’s open environments is often ‘designing for participation’. Has the pendulum now swung too far in this direction, such that those who are said to ‘lurk’ are dismissed, derided, or at best, understood through a deficit model?
Our proposed lenses on lurking as troublesome, political and ordinary, suggest alternative ways of understanding lurking behaviours, but do not provide an obvious answer to the question of how to engage the lurking learner – or whether the lurker must be engaged. What does learner agency look like in this context? Can we truly design for all? Or should we design for participation – and let lurkers lurk?
We are seeking input from participants in online learning spaces – current students or teachers or people who have other roles or with an interest in learning in open environments. Through the discussion/activity, further insights into both the ‘lurker experience’ and inclusive learning design will emerge
Session content
Drawing on previous experiences in exploring questions of digital identity and engagement (Author, 2017; Author, 2018), we are proposing a WORKSHOP COMBINED WITH AN OPEN SPACE in order to engage the audience early on so we can gather a different range of answers to our questions.
Two interactive walls will be designed, one analogue and another digital. The analogue to be placed in an open space (from day 1) to foster discussion amongst people prior to the workshop, and the digital wall on Padlet to allow remote participation.
Pre-workshop feedback from the walls will be combined with further input from participants, followed by the discussion of our proposed lenses, in order to see whether our three lenses are sufficient or whether further lenses emerge from the activity.
References
–> Bali, M. & Sharma, S. (2014). Bonds of Difference: Participation as Inclusion. Hybrid Pedagogy. Available at: http://hybridpedagogy.org/bonds-difference-participation-inclusion [Accessed 20-11-2018]
–> Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L., & Koutropoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the Periphery: Lurkers as Invisible Learners. European Journal of Open, 20(1), 191–1027.
–> Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C. The Psychology of Online Lurking. The Oxford Handbook of Cyberpsychology. Oxford UP.
–> Author. (2018). Conference presentation
–> Author. (2017). Conference presentation
Citation:
Kuhn, C., Havemann, L., Koseoglu, S., Bozkurt, A., & Watling, S. (2019). Recentering open for those at the margins: three lenses on lurking [Workshop]. 11.04.2019, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
https://oer19.oerconf.org/sessions/recentering-open-for-those-at-the-margins-three-lenses-on-lurking-o-146/
Session Description
The group presenting this session was formed through a serendipitous participation in a ‘slow chat’ (#HEdigID) on the topic of OEP. The chat went on long beyond its official end, and we realized that the #HEdigID network was larger than we had observed. It included ‘invisible’ participants who were simply listening, or tuning in once in a while. We began to discuss the practice of ‘lurking’ and the idea of ‘the lurker’. The group conversation which followed revealed some of the complexities of lurking behaviours.
What (or who) is a “lurker”? Do we need to rethink what participation means? Why some learners are visible, and others less visible or maybe invisible, remaining on the margins of online and networked learning? Do we need to recenter participation in open spaces – to bring in those who appear to choose to stay on the periphery? It seems there is a need to turn a critical lens onto our assumptions, and think about how ‘privileging the visible’ may constrain and exclude more invisible learners equally interested in learning (Honeychurch et al., 2017; Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C., 2018).
Against a prior emphasis on transmission of knowledge, designing for learning in today’s open environments is often ‘designing for participation’. Has the pendulum now swung too far in this direction, such that those who are said to ‘lurk’ are dismissed, derided, or at best, understood through a deficit model?
Our proposed lenses on lurking as troublesome, political and ordinary, suggest alternative ways of understanding lurking behaviours, but do not provide an obvious answer to the question of how to engage the lurking learner – or whether the lurker must be engaged. What does learner agency look like in this context? Can we truly design for all? Or should we design for participation – and let lurkers lurk?
We are seeking input from participants in online learning spaces – current students or teachers or people who have other roles or with an interest in learning in open environments. Through the discussion/activity, further insights into both the ‘lurker experience’ and inclusive learning design will emerge
Session content
Drawing on previous experiences in exploring questions of digital identity and engagement (Author, 2017; Author, 2018), we are proposing a WORKSHOP COMBINED WITH AN OPEN SPACE in order to engage the audience early on so we can gather a different range of answers to our questions.
Two interactive walls will be designed, one analogue and another digital. The analogue to be placed in an open space (from day 1) to foster discussion amongst people prior to the workshop, and the digital wall on Padlet to allow remote participation.
Pre-workshop feedback from the walls will be combined with further input from participants, followed by the discussion of our proposed lenses, in order to see whether our three lenses are sufficient or whether further lenses emerge from the activity.
References
–> Bali, M. & Sharma, S. (2014). Bonds of Difference: Participation as Inclusion. Hybrid Pedagogy. Available at: http://hybridpedagogy.org/bonds-difference-participation-inclusion [Accessed 20-11-2018]
–> Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L., & Koutropoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the Periphery: Lurkers as Invisible Learners. European Journal of Open, 20(1), 191–1027.
–> Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C. The Psychology of Online Lurking. The Oxford Handbook of Cyberpsychology. Oxford UP.
–> Author. (2018). Conference presentation
–> Author. (2017). Conference presentation
Citation:
Kuhn, C., Havemann, L., Koseoglu, S., Bozkurt, A., & Watling, S. (2019). Recentering open for those at the margins: three lenses on lurking [Workshop]. 11.04.2019, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
https://oer19.oerconf.org/sessions/recentering-open-for-those-at-the-margins-three-lenses-on-lurking-o-146/
- by Leo Havemann and +2
- •
- Digital Education, Community of Inquiry
This interview, which is about online teaching, was conducted with Angel Pazurek by Suzan Koseoglu and Aras Bozkurt. Pazurek is a senior lecturer and graduate faculty member in learning technologies at the University of Minnesota. She... more
This interview, which is about online teaching, was conducted with Angel Pazurek by Suzan Koseoglu and Aras Bozkurt. Pazurek is a senior lecturer and graduate faculty member in learning technologies at the University of Minnesota. She teaches and works on digital literacy, social media, online teaching and learning design, and research methodologies for learning technologies. In this interview, she discusses her experiences with online teaching by drawing attention to issues such as teaching philosophy and designing for the learner experience.
- by Suzan Koseoglu and +2
- •
If we are to learn on the web and with the web, how can we respond to the barriers for meaningful participation in a constructive and ethical way and nurture a more inclusive space for all? In this chapter, I explore these issues in the... more
If we are to learn on the web and with the web, how can we respond to the barriers for meaningful participation in a constructive and ethical way and nurture a more inclusive space for all? In this chapter, I explore these issues in the light of the work of scholars who have inspired me and my own professional practice in educational technologies.