a PhD study by Chrissi Nerantzi to be completed in 2017

Towards a cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development

Progress made, GO-GN event, Cape Town, South Africa, March 2017

Proud member of the…

Please comment on: • Clarity of

information about the study

• Contribution to knowledge

• Timelines (in pack)

The menu

1. An overview of my research questions

2. How I am approaching the methodology

3. What has been my progress so far

4. Any issues I have encountered

5. Specific areas I would like to get feedback on

year 1: my first baby steps

the journey continues... Year 2: turning into a toddler

the journey continues... Year 3: maturing emotionally

the journey must end this year... Year 5: a teenager… from 4 to 14, this is how it feels

3. What has been my progress so far

2nd full draft Jan 2017

• 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?

1. An overview of my research questions

2. How I am approaching the methodology

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 RQ2 Disc.

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/

PBL Negotiated

Groups supported by facilitators

Motivations: • Be learners and experience

learning in the open • To enhance practice • Learn with others

Constructing the collective case study Initial survey data about study participants ( n = 25)

Sweden, Canada, Norway, Uganda

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-focus High product expectations

Individual focus Process-focus Low product expectations

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

Research questions (reminder)

• 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?

Learning in groups Cooperative, collaborative learning and collaborative inquiry including PBL (highly structured) (Savin-Baden, 2003) Relationships: Social interdependence theory in cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) also collaborative online learning (Sharples, de Roock, Ferguson, Gaved, Herodotou, Koh, Kukulska-Hulme, Looi,

McAndrew, Rienties, Weller & Wong, 2016) Product vs process “learning from collaboration” Dillenbourg (1999) Collaborative learning as choice (Beetham, 2015) Collaborative learning important in HE critical, creative thinkers (Biggs & Tang, 2007)

Open learning Exclusive and undemocratic (Lane, 2009) Neocolonialism, English domination (Uvalic-Trumbic, 2012) Little OER” (Weller, 2011) Open ed creates practitioner level collaborations: share, develop in communities (Orr, Rimini & van Damme, 2015) democratisation of HE, opening-up HE, working with public (Levin, 2004) The ‘public facing open scholar’ (Coughlan & Perriman, 2012, p.2) Diversification of participation needed (Lane, 2009) Support models for OEP needed (including facilitation), Lane (2009) HE to open up and cross-institutional collaboration (Iamorato dos Santos et al., 2016)

Digital technologies and frameworks From Individualistic to collective participation through social media (Conole & Alevizou, 2010) Range of evidence-based and conceptual frameworks with collaborative learning features (from CSCL to 5C), none specifically for collaborative open learning but facilitator support, community, activities and choice important in these Modes of interaction (media, synchronous, asynchronous) Learners different cultural backgrounds for online collaborative learning (Rovai, 2004)

Academic development in the UK Competition and financial incentives for HEIs in the UK as a driver to achieve teaching excellence (TEF, 2016a; 2016b) CPD within institutions, perceived as top-down approach (Crawford, 2009) Academics want freedom: Academics want to pursue their own interests in L&T! Academics want to be part of networks and communities, often external/disciplinary ones (Crawford, 2009) Open cross-institutional collaborations increase engagement in CPD and drive innovation in teaching (Pawlyshyn, Braddlee, Casper & Miller, 2013)

6. 1 RQ 1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses experienced that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning?

6.2 RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses influence learners’ experience and how?

6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public) The courses’ cross-boundary nature brought academic staff, students, public together to learn together. Participants were formal and informal learners from different cultures. This diversity enriched their collaborative open learning experience and made learning more interesting to them.

6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support) The facilitator support was vital for collaborative open learning, to help build group relationships and resolve technological and course issues and build peer-support capacity. The non-directive facilitator and the facilitator as co-learner was most welcome by participants.

6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile) Participants engaged online and offline in collaborative open learning activities and the course. They also used their mobile devices to connect with course activities. The offline dimension of engagement was especially relevant for ‘selective’ collaborators and provides insights that open learning does not exclusive happen online.

6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design) The flexibility of the collaborative open learning design, using inquiry-based activities worked for ‘selective’ and ‘immersive’ collaborators, when this was agreed with participants and especially when the focus of collaboration was the process.

6.1.3 Learners as community Especially ‘immersive ‘ collaborators were seeking to be part of a community. They cultivated social relationships. Synchronous social media video technologies helped them in this process. The cross-boundary nature of the groups was especially attractive to participants and generated increased interest for each other.

6.2.3 Course as community Participants saw the course as a community that continued beyond the pre-defined timeframe. The cross-institutional and cross-boundary dimensions of the courses, that also brought together formal and informal learning using social media, presents a new academic development approach that is a continuum.

Learner engagement patterns

Selective collaborating Immersive collaborating

• Focus on self • “Lives” elsewhere • Low group product expectations • Some small group participation • Might use course to complement other studies, professional

recognition • Support mainly from elsewhere

• Focus on group • “Lives” in the group • High group product expectations • Might be studying towards credits on course, or professional

recognition • Support mainly from within the group

Learner needs

Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator

Milestone cohort activities + Social relationships, community

Some small group activities + Regular buddy / small group activities

Light touch facilitation + Regular facilitation

Sporadic synchronous + Regular asynchronous and synchronous

Sporadic group purposes + Group purposes and co-creating meaning

Process + Co-created products

Design considerations

Collaborating institutions (weak)

Organisation, and facilitation team

Learner profiles and cross-boundary considerations

Learning and Teaching approach

Group work and community

Resources, tools and open licensing (weak)

Accreditation / Recognition Online / Offline mode Course outcomes and activities

Timing and scheduling

RQ3: Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework in cross-institutional academic development (cc licence)

Contribution to knowledge and practice

• Gained new insights into learner engagement patterns in collaborative open learning

• Identified the course design characteristics that foster cross-boundary collaborative open learning

• Designed a cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development

4. Any issues I have encountered

• Loneliness • Wrestling with the

methodology and the mountains of data Connecting findings with literature

• Being critical • Establishing a voice • Articulating contribution

and building confidence

Images

Presentation CC BY-NC Images • Slide 2 Manchester Metropolitan University photo from

university.which.co.uk • Slide 2 black and white photography by Thanassis Nerantzis • Slide 4 cc images:

– http://www.boba.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Boba.BabyFeetWalking.jpg

– https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4093/4741884552_be5c88e6b9_z.jpg – https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/6953436148_19b47d4942_z.jpg – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Islabikes_Cnoc_14.jp

g – https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5655/20412359073_087389a5a4_b.jpg

• All other images are by Chrissi Nerantzi made available under CC BY-NC

References Beetham, H., 2015. Developing digital know-how: building digital talent: Key issues in framing the digital capabilities of staff in UK HE and FE. Bristol: Jisc. Accessed online from https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2015/08/5.-Report.pdf Biggs, J. & Tang, C., 2007. Teaching for quality learning at university, Maidenhead: Open University Press. BIS, 2016a. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility & student choice, Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BIS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy.pdf on 20th May 2016. BIS, 2016b. Teaching excellence framework: Year two specification. Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BOS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf on 4th October 2016. Conole, G., 2012. E-learning in higher education, new technologies and education for multilingualism, second rectors’ conference, European parliament, Brussels, 18-19 October 2012. [keynote]. Accessed from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/interp/rectorsconference2012/docs/pdf/conole_presentation.pdf on 28th May 2016. Conole, G. & Alevizou, P., 2010. A literature review of the use of web 2.0 tools in higher education. (HEA Report). Accessed from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf Crawford, K., 2009. Continuing professional development in higher education: Voices from below. University of Lincoln. [EdD thesis]. Accessed from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf on 22nd October 2013 Dillenbourg P., 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In: Dillenbourg, P., ed., 1999. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier. pp.1-19. Accessed online from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.14.pdf on 26th June 2014. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into Practice. 38 (2: Building Community through Cooperative Learning). pp. 67–73. Accessed from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405849909543834 on the 20th November 2014. 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 on 14 September 2016. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into Practice. 38 (2: Building Community through Cooperative Learning). pp. 67–73. Accessed from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405849909543834 on the 20th November 2014. Lane, A., 2009. The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. The international review of research in open and distance learning, 10 (5). Accessed from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/637 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 on 20th September 2015. Daniel, J.S. & Uvalic-Trumbic, S., 2012. Fostering governmental support for open educational resources internationally, second regional policy forum, Africa. Updated 27/02/2012. Accessed from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/RPF%20Africa%20final%20report.pdf Rovai, A.P., 2004. A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and higher education, 7 pp.79-93. Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H., 2016. Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open university innovation report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Weller, M. 2016c. Emerging OER discipline, 7 September 2016. Accessed from http://www.slideshare.net/mweller/emerging-oer-discipline on 18 December 2016.