Archive of Feb 4, 2020 #aboerjc

Thank you Laurel Beaton (@laurelbeaton) for hosting the Feb 4, 2020 #aboerjc discussion.

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

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

Web archive:


December 3rd #aboerjc discussion questions

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

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?

Archive of Nov 5, 2019 #aboerjc

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:

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

Web version:

PDF version

Archive of Oct 8, 2019 #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.

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:

PDF version

ABOER Journal Club Twitter discussion, October 8, 2019


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.

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.”

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: )

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

Archive of Sept 3, 2019 #aboerjc

Thanks for joining @eriksation and friends discuss McNally and Christiansen’s article Open enough? Eight factors to consider when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses: A conceptual frameworkFirst Monday 24(6).

Our usual Twitter archiving tool has been acting up, so we’ve opted to provide the search. If you want to read the conversation in order, please start from the bottom of the page. Scroll down until all tweets have stopped loading. We’ve also provided a static PDF which is located on the Archive page.

Twitter conversation:

PDF version

#aboerjc discussion Sept. 3, 2019

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?

June 4th Twitter discussion

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?