Topic 2 has seen us survey the history and development of online/distributed education, along with principles of open education, and how major learning theories fit and inform them. It has led me to think about a variety of learning environments that I’ve experienced over the past few years (among other things, Weller (2018) reminded me of my first visit to a conference called the ETUG (Educational Technology Users Group) Spring Workshop in 2007, when – just as Weller says – Second Life was the ‘buzz’ topic and several sessions had been presented to help introduce conference attendees to what many people saw as a huge opportunity to connect virtually.). Reflecting back, I find that it is next to impossible to recall a learning experience that could be described as built with just one of the learning theories as its pedagogy. I also find that many learning experiences were very much ‘partly open’ – crucially, it has always seemed to be a struggle to find institutional/financial support for fully open learning.

In a previous post, I discussed a powerful learning experience in which the vast majority of the learning occurred while my group collaborated on assignments (there was only one non-collaborative assignment). All course materials (readings) were copyrighted. We chose our collaborative technologies (Zoom and Google Docs let us talk and work on the same document simultaneously) and submitted our assignments to a Brightspace site for assessment. In one case, we created an instructional Tiktok video, so we can be seen to have shared a resource openly.

Hegarty (2015) describes eight attributes of Open Pedagogy. Here’s a quick assessment of the ‘openness’ of the course I took, based on these eight attributes:

  1. Participatory technologies: There was no ‘official’ use of technologies other than Brightspace, a closed LMS. 0/10
  2. People, openness, trust: We only succeeded in the course because of the trust, confidence and openness my group had for working together. We lucked out in finding each other and required no help in this regard from the instructor. The initial guidance from the instructor was to post a biography and then find a group. I’ll give the instructor a 2/10 for that basic effort.
  3. Innovation & creativity: We were encouraged to find and create learning objects of our choice for the assignments, and the instructor was willing to accept and reward a Tiktok video (a relatively new technology) as our submission. 10/10
  4. Sharing ideas & resources: There was no encouragement to share freely. 0/10
  5. Connected community: We were not connected to any community of professionals (like, for instance, the OpenETC). 0/10
  6. Learner generated: Although we generated a learning object, there was no mention of OER. 0/10
  7. Reflective practice: The entire course was an opportunity for reflective practice. 10/10
  8. Peer review: There was no encouragement to contribute to open critique of others’ scholarship. 0/10.

Based on my scores, the course, in general, either fully satisfied or completely ignored the attributes of open pedagogy. According to Hegarty (2015), it is important to engage with all of the attributes in order to “become [an] open practitioner”. So the course – and presumably the instructor – was not designed with open pedagogy in mind.

HOWEVER, here is an assessment of my group’s activity as part of the course:

  1. Participatory technologies: We used Google Docs, Zoom, Tiktok and Discord as part of our efforts. 8/10
  2. People, openness, trust: We succeeded in the course because of the trust, confidence and openness my group had for working together. It felt safe to argue over points of contention because of the mutual respect we achieved. 10/10
  3. Innovation & creativity: We created, as learning object, a multimedia, accessible Tiktok video (a relatively new technology) to help viewers learn a skill. 10/10
  4. Sharing ideas & resources: We freely shared our learning object on Tiktok. We didn’t post our other assignment deliverables to an open place. 8/10
  5. Connected community: We connected, through each other, to communities of professionals in several disciplines. We didn’t directly connect our group to these communities though. 5/10
  6. Learner generated: We generated a learning object, and were excited to share it on Tiktok. We had the spirit of OER, but didn’t do some of the formalities associated with OER. 5/10
  7. Reflective practice: We spent huge amounts of time in reflective practice. Huge. 10/10
  8. Peer review: We reviewed and edited each others’ contributions to our group projects, and provided feedback for each others’ individual projects 10/10.

As a result of this, I feel that my group could be described as aspiring open practitioners. For a subsequent collaboration, we are currently investigating how to appropriately assign it a CC license (it is hosted on opened.ca). What then can we say about the course we used as a basis for our open practice? I’m not sure I have the answer to that just yet.

References

Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources. Educational Technology, 55(4), 3-13. Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Ed_Tech_Hegarty_2015_article_attributes_of_open_pedagogy.pdf

Weller, M. (2018, August). Twenty Years of Edtech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech