Hare & Dillon (2016) share hacks on Learning Spaces for Educators. Join @laurelbeaton FEB 4 2020 @ 7pm MST to discuss learning spaces in K-12 and how that translates to HigherEd.

Hare, R. L., & Dillon, R. (2016). The Space: A Guide for Educators. EdTechTeam Press.

Video:

1. What is the purpose of our learning spaces?  How should learning spaces serve students?
2. How does student voice play a role in the planning of your learning space?  How can you include students in the planning process? 
3. What learning traits do you want to foster and support in your learners through your learning space?
4. What do you want students to “do” in the space?
5. What unique growth can students get from learning together?
6. How can creating spaces for quiet lead to growth and support of learners?
7. Worst case scenario: What is the worst thing that could possibly happen from changing your students’ learning space?
8. What advice would you give to someone who has never reconsidered their learning space before?

The Warp and the Weft of Open Education and Social Justice

Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams. (2019, 27 November 27). Paper presented at Open Education Global, Milan, Italy. Available under a CC-BY license

“By implication open education subscribes to notions of social justice, but implementation strategies and research often focus on economic injustice to the exclusion of cultural and political inequities. Moreover, despite altruistic motivations, open education activity may unintentionally reproduce many of the existing inequities that it seeks to change. Drawing upon the projects in which I am involved I will highlight the intertwinement of open education and social justice in projects in the global south, by illustrating ways of strengthening equitable access, cultural equality and political legitimacy.” Abstract from https://oeglobal2019.sched.com/event/Uh21/keynote-the-warp-and-weft-of-open-education-and-social-justice

Video Recording of Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWBYnwA10P8&feature=youtu.be

Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hiMAZZ86FiOLzQxdb08gAYYt35WM8DOdFLEwHfeXhKg/edit

1. What guides your development/use of OER or open education? Social justice? economic equity? Cultural diversity? Political inclusion?

2. How have you considered your own positionality when developing or using educational materials? Positionality is a declaration of your own background for the purposes of clarifying potential biases; for example, your ethnicity, socio-economic background, gender etc.

2. What are some other considerations you would include to promote social justice using OER and open education?

3. Are you aware of any initiatives in Canada to re-evaluate devalued knowledge? Can you think of any examples of a culturally inclusive open education project?

4. Since many OER resources and a lot of open research are in English, does this further promote cultural hegemony in countries whose first language is not English?

6. In terms of cultural and political hegemony, how can open education empower those who are seen as subordinate to the dominant power? Do you have any examples with respect to curricula, assessment and accreditation?

This month’s discussion will hosted by Connie Blomgren (@DocBlom). She will be asking questions related to a presentation from OEGlobal19, a keynote given by Dominic Orr (@DominicOrr) titled “New Learning pathways in an open and digital  world – What might the education landscape look like in 2030?”.
He holds the position of Adjunct Professor Novia Gorica & Research Lead at Kiron Open Higher Education. Here is the link to his slidedeck https://speakerdeck.com/dominic_orr/new-learning-pathways-in-an-open-and-digital-world-what-might-the-education-landscape-look-like-in-2030?slide=4.

Discussion questions: 4 Major Goals for higher education are given as well as 4 pathways for higher education learners.

1. Are these 4 goals for higher education attainable? To what degree do you see these goals as being difficult to achieve? (I will list these 4 goals in a series of tweets – so people can engage).
   
2. The first learning pathway (i.e. the closed ecosystem of a Tamagotchi metaphor) matches with our current higher education practices. Do you see this changing by 2030? Why or why not?
3. The second pathway (Jenga metaphor) has a foundation created through shorter study blocks and in Jenga style you build it up. What would be the merits or drawbacks to this approach?
   
4. The third pathway is based on a Lego metaphor – with modules of different sizes and needs making up the learner’s pathway through higher education. What are the merits or drawbacks to a Lego metaphor for a learning pathway?
   
5. The 4th is on the Transformer metaphor -where learners do not directly enter into higher ed and instead acquire their learning identity through experiences which contributes to their eventual studies. What are the merits or drawbacks to this model?

Thank you Lee Graham (@ak_leeg) & Verena Roberts for leading November’s #aboerjc. In this conversation we discussed the following article:

Graham, L. & Roberts, V. (2019) Sharing a Pragmatic Networked Model for Open Pedagogy: The Open Hub Model of Knowledge Generation in Higher Education Environments. International Journal of Innovation in Online Education. Feb 01. DOI: 10.1615/IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2019029340. Retrieved from: http://onlineinnovationsjournal.com/streams/the-influence-of-social-media-on-online-education/166ed2992d9a3c9d.html

Web and PDF versions of the full Twitter conversation can be found below.

Web version: https://twitter.com/search?q=(%23aboerjc)%20until%3A2019-11-10%20since%3A2019-11-05&src=typd&f=live

PDF version

SHARING A PRAGMATIC NETWORKED MODEL FOR OPEN PEDAGOGY: THE OPEN HUB MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE GENERATION IN HIGHER-EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTS

Lee Graham (@ak_leeg) & Verena Roberts (@verenanz), 2019

Citation: 

Graham, L. & Roberts, V. (2019) Sharing a Pragmatic Networked Model for Open Pedagogy: The Open Hub Model of Knowledge Generation in Higher Education Environments. International Journal of Innovation in Online Education. Feb 01. DOI: 10.1615/IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2019029340

Retrieved from: http://onlineinnovationsjournal.com/streams/the-influence-of-social-media-on-online-education/166ed2992d9a3c9d.html

@hypothes_is link for this conversation is open bit.ly/2NDj4Ty

(You may need to update your Hypothesis plug in)

Twitter Chat Questions: (November 5, 2019 from 7-8 pm MDT)

In a time of rapid obsolescence (Powell and Snelling, 2004), new skills are needed so that teachers and students can remain relevant and up to date on pedagogical opportunities offered with the use of new technologies.

Q1: What are some examples of new skills Tchrs & Ss need to remain up to date on pedagogical opportunities offered with use of new technologies. #aboerjc

Q2:Does your professional learning include Community of Inquiry or Community of Practice? How does this support your learning?  #aboerjc

Q3: “Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known” via @gsiemens How are you considering connectivist learning in your learning context?  #aboerjc

Q4: Do you agree that blogging can support connectivist and open educational practices, why or why not?

Q5: How can “blogging be a part of a broad palette of cybercultural practices, which provide us with both new ways of doing & new ways of thinking” ? via @marcusod  #aboerjc

Q6: Using the three levels (Red, Yellow, Green) of the Open HUB model as a guide, which levels have you used or been asked to use in a learning context?   #aboerjc

Q7: What is the importance of infrastructure and digital literacies in the Open Hub Model?  #aboerjc

Q8: How does the Open Hub model encourage  co-learning and co-designing learning opportunities?  #aboerjc

Thanks @awakaruk for sharing your expertise and leading a conversation on “How to Fight  Fair Use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt: The Experience of One Open Educational Resource.”  Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.9751

The web version of our conversation be can be viewed using the link below. There’s also a PDF version available on the Archive page. Conversations presented in reverse chronological order.

Web archive: https://twitter.com/search?q=(%23aboerjc)%20until%3A2019-10-10%20since%3A2019-10-08&src=typed_query&f=live

PDF version

Article

Weeramuni,  L., (2019).  How to Fight  Fair Use Fear,  Uncertainty, and Doubt: The  Experience  of One Open  Educational Resource.  Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.9751

Note: This article was written in a US context, where fair use is a statutory exception to copyright infringement. In Canada, we have a similar legal provision, known as fair dealing.

For reference, section 29 of the Canadian Copyright Act states, “Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.” https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-9.html#h-103270

Caselaw is used to help assess whether or not a dealing may be fair. At the end of the day, however, only a court of law can determine if a dealing is fair. 

Discussion Questions

Q1: Appendix A of the article is a licence between MIT and MIT faculty members. The licence grants MIT non-exclusive rights to use faculty-created content in OCW. Would such a licence be necessary at your institution? Why or why not? (Hint: IP provisions are usually found in collective agreements. Here is a link to provisions at Alberta colleges and universities: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hklxz1SSFuTEUdWZTILmcTcbYgS2fOrS7RP_0IKu0PA/edit?usp=sharing )

Q2: If the faculty member developing the OER holds copyright in the content they create do they need to rely on fair dealing to include it in an OER?

Q3: What is the source of the “fair use fear” as described in this article?

Q4: What type of institutional supports are needed to implement a fair dealing assessment service for OER like the one in place at MIT?

Q5: No Canadian university or college has institutional fair dealing guidelines that support the re-use of an entire work (e.g., cover page of a book) in an OER. Considering the Supreme Court of Canada’s suggested fair dealing factors, is the use of a book’s cover page, as described in the article, likely to be fair?

Factors to consider when assessing whether a dealing is fair:

(i) The Purpose of the Dealing

(ii) The Character of the Dealing

(iii) The Amount of the Dealing

(iv) Alternatives to the Dealing

(v) The Nature of the Work

(vi) Effect of the Dealing on the Work

This month’s discussion will be facilitated by Connie Blomgren and Erik Christiansen.

This month’s article was published June 2019 in First Monday, and was written by Michael McNally and Erik Christiansen. It is titled “Open enough? Eight factors to consider when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses: A Conceptual framework.“

Discussion Questions

1. The authors propose a conceptual framework to determine what is ‘open enough’ to help educators estimate workload when developing open courses (p.4). Do you find the framework helpful? How would you have framed it differently?
   
   
2. The authors break down open education into eight factors. Are there other factors you would have added? Eliminated/combined?
   
   
3. In Step 2 of the framework, the authors propose how much willingness/effort is required to implement each of the eight factors (pp. 10-11). Do you agree with their assumptions? Would you reassign willingness/effort differently?
   
   
4. In Step 3 of the framework, the authors argue that accessibility/usability considerations, language, and cultural considerations require the most knowledge from educators when transitioning from closed to open courses (pp  11-12). Do you think this is accurate?
   
   
5. The authors argue that maximizing openness for assessment, language, and support costs can have negative pedagogical trade offs (pp. 7-8). Eg. Instructor feedback (closed & mixed) vs. self-assessment (most open). What do you think of this argument?
   
   
6. In the “Limitations and discussion” (pp. 12-14), the authors propose goal posts around openness (‘open enough’). Are there other suggestions that could have been included?