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?

Big thanks to @CordeliaSnowdon for hosting this month’s ABOER Twitter Chat! An archive of the discussion can be found below.

Twitter discussion archive

• Wakelet link: https://wke.lt/w/s/lMkMIF
• PDF

Article link: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3170/4395

Article: Student Voice in Textbook Evaluation: Comparing Open and Restricted Textbooks

Authors: Scott Woodward, PhD, Adam Lloyd, and Royce Kimmons, PhD

Discussion Questions

1. What was your main takeaway from this article? Was there anything that surprised you?

2. What are the potential perceived threats of students changing from “silent witnesses” to “active agents” in textbook evaluation? How can students and other OER advocates mitigate these concerns?

3. The authors note that textbook evaluations often ignore student voice. How can students break through decision-making processes around textbook selection and evaluation?

4. The authors note a number of limitations to their findings, and this study was also conducted at a private, high research activity university. Do you think the findings are applicable in your context? Why or why not?

Twitter discussion archive

• Wakelet link: https://wke.lt/w/s/A_thhZ
• PDF

Article link: https://www.academia.edu/23393393/Open_Educational_Practices_and_21CC_Positioning_their_Significance?auto=download

Our next Twitter chat will be hosted by Rosemarri Klamn (@KlamnJam)

Article: Funk, J. & Mason, J. (2015). Open Education Practices and 21CC: Positioning their Significance. Proceedings of the 23^rd International Conference on Computers in Education. China: Asia-Pacific Society for Computer in Education.  Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/23393393/Open_Educational_Practices_and_21CC_Positioning_their_Significance?auto=download

1.     Funk & Mason (2015) emphasize the significance of OEP to 21CC (skills), especially in marginalized learner populations of the Northern Territory in Australia.  Do you see a connection between OEP and 21cc in your jurisdiction? Other jurisdictions? How so?

2.     Authors give examples of how OEP is practiced by the Yolngu people of Australia, connecting Learning On Country concepts (p. 289) to develop Indigenous Fisheries Training practices (p.291). What role do culture and technology play in offering DE and OEP to isolated communities? How does this connect to skills training?

3.     Australia (AU) and Canada (CA) have similar challenges with offering educational opportunities to students in isolated communities.  Are you aware of ways that CA uses OEP? Have you experienced designing or delivering learning for isolated/indigenous communities?

4.     Authors extend OER by emphasizing process, competence, application, and qualification vs. experience in developing innovative skills training strategies (p.288).  Do these concepts resonate with your understanding of OEP? Of preparing learners for the workforce?  

5.     Common 21CC are communication, teamwork, problem solving, initiative/enterprise, planning/organizing, self-management, learning skills, and technology.  Are you able to use OEP to shape these skills in your course design and delivery?

Discussion of Rajiv Jhangiani’s article “Pragmatism vs. Idealism and the Identity Crisis of OER Advocacy,” facilitated by @marcpsinger.

Article Link: https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/569

Twitter discussion link: http://wke.lt/w/s/abJx9

Questions for #aboerjc on Jhangiani’s article “Pragmatism vs. Idealism and the Identity Crisis of OER Advocacy“

1. Is the Open Ed Movement still a “movement”? What does it mean for an idea or approach to be a movement?
2. Is there a meaningful difference between “open” and “free” from a student’s point of view?
3. Should all #OER advocates become #OEP advocates? What if they don’t?
4. What examples of effective #OEP have you encountered or used?
5. Jhangiani quotes the proverb: “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” Is this possible, given the variety of contexts in which OER functions?

Discussion of Sarah R. Lambert’s article “Changing our (Dis)Course: A Distinctive Social Justice Aligned Definition of Open Education.”

Article Link: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/290/334

Twitter conversation archive: http://wke.lt/w/s/UQBof

Discussion facilitated by @CariLibrarian.

Join us at 7 pm MST for a discussion of Sarah Lambert’s article “Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education.”

Article link: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/290/334

Moderator Cari Merkley @carilibrarian has provided the following questions to help you prepare for our discussion:

Question 1: What stood out for you most about this article?

Question 2: Were there any findings in the thematic analysis of the sample texts that surprised you? Anything you struggled with?

Question 3: What opportunities and/or challenges might emerge from the broad adoption of the proposed definition of open education with its focus on social justice?

Question 4: How do the concepts outlined in this article relate to discussions around Open Education Week? Do these concepts and values intersect, overlap, or diverge? For context, the following definition is provided on the Open Education Week website (thanks @erikasmith for suggesting this question).

Question 5: How well do our OE initiatives here in Canada (or that we are contributing to elsewhere) address the three principles of social justice (redistributive, recognitive and representational justice) outlined in the article? Are there any projects that you would like to highlight?

Discussion of Schuwer and Janssen’s article “Adoption of Sharing and Reuse of Open Resources by Educators in Higher EducationInstitutions in the Netherlands”

Archived Twitter chat: http://wke.lt/w/s/tTprV

Article link: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3390