Upload
chrissi-nerantzi
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Delegates will be able to…
• gain insights into key findings around the principles of effective collaborative open learning linked to a specific study
• discuss cross-boundary learning in the context of cross-institutional academic development and relevance for their own practice
• discuss the potential use of the collaborative open learning framework from this study for own practice
Research questions
• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning experienced by learners?
• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses most strongly 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?
Initial survey, 19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey, 11 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22) (main 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)
Ph
eno
men
ogr
aphy
(Mar
ton
, 19
81
)Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+Surveys findings
Two surveys, (collective case study data collection method)
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
RQ1 and RQ2Disc.
Open-ness in
HE
Digital tech and frame-works
Learning with
others in groups
Academic development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning
Case study 2
https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/2615/creativity-for-learning-in-higher-education/
Creativity for Learning in HE by Chrissi Nerantzi for CELT, MMU is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Case study 1
https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/
Motivations:• Be learners and experience
learning in the open• Informal CPD• To enhance practice• Learn with others
Initial survey data about study participants ( n = 25)
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)
Stru
ctu
ral f
acto
rs (
Are
a A
)Li
ved
exp
erie
nce
(A
rea
B)
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-focusHigh product expectations
Individual focus Process-focusLow product expectations
Outcome space
Cross-boundary learning through modes of participation
… as a valued mixed mode learning experience… as a valued informal learning experience… as a valued opportunity for recognition
Cross-boundary learning through time and place
… as a continuum… as an interruption
Cross-boundary learning through culture and language
… as inclusion… as exclusion
Cross-boundary learning through mixed professional contexts
… as fertiliser… as discomfort
PO
OL
3: C
ross
-Bo
un
dar
ies
Want better quality teaching?
Competition
Collaboration
Nerantzi, C. (accepted) Alternative approaches to the TEF: raising the quality of teaching through openness, collaboration and innovation, in: Compass, Greenwich: University of Greenwich
ReferencesAkkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A., 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. June 2011, 81 (2). pp. 132–169.
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
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
Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: Voices from Below, EdD thesis, University of Lincoln, available at http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf
Hall, R. & Smyth, K., (2016). Dismantling the curriculum in higher education. Open library of humanities, 2 (1), p.e11. Accessed from http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.66
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño-Muñoz, J., 2016. Opening up Education: A support framework for higher education institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN: doi: 10.2791/293408. Assessed from http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-education-institutions
Marton, F., 1986. Phenomenography – A research approach to investigating different understandngs of reality. Journal of thought, 21 (3), Fall 1986, Periodicals Archive Online. pp.28-49.
Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10, pp. 177-200.
Pegler, C., 2013. The influence of open resources on design practice. In: Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., eds., 2013. In: Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing for 21st century learning. London: Routledge, pp.145-158.
Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, G., Casper, L. & Miller, H., 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation, educause review, Why IT matters to HE. Updated 04/11/2013. Accessed from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-innovation
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.