towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Towards a cross-boundary collaborative open learning

framework for cross-institutional academic development

Viva preparation resources

Chrissi Nerantzi

2017

Health warning

• These are only sample materials and questions

• You will need to adapt questions to your context and also there will be many questions that will be specific to your study only.

• The answers provided to the questions and shown here, are provisional and further changes were made on paper as these were then used as flashcards for the mock viva grillings… as I called them ;).

What you will find here

• Research summary

• Viva questions

• Chapter summaries

• To take with me into the viva

• Used and useful during the viva

• Questions I was asked

These sections are indicated with bright yellow slides.

I hope some of it will be useful for others preparing for their viva.

Feel free to adapt!

Timeline of viva preparation

5th May 2017 submission of thesis5th June 2017 started viva prep (reading questions,

created this presentation, formulating questions and answers)

18th July 2017 above prep completed28 July mock viva 28

August 2017 continued prep until back from holidays.Early September 2017 seven mock viva grillings by Adam

last one 5 Sep 20171 Sept 2017 mini DoS mock viva

4 Sep 2017 last chat with supervisor

Whole studies

Started studies 14 January 2013Data collection 2013-2015

Draft 1 July 2016Draft 2 January 2017

Thesis ready April 2017Thesis submitted 5 May 2017

Examiners approved at School level 22 June 2017Examiners approved at institutional level 4 July 2017

Viva date confirmed 24 July 2017Viva date 8 September 2017

Research summary

In this PhD I explored…

• Collaborative open learning in cross-institutional professional development courses for those who teach in HE in the UK.

• Collaborative open learning is defined for this study as learning that happens in openly-licensed courses online and offline, where collaboration is a choice and designed-into the course.

• The collaborations among institutions are of informal nature driven by practitioners.

RQs

• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses experienced that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative learning?

• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses 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?

I did this by…

• Conducting a phenomenographic study to gain insights into the collective lived collaborative open learning experience and identify the qualitatively limited different ways in which it was experienced (Marton, 1981) aiming to inform practice.

• Collecting data via individual remote interviews with 22 participants on 2 open courses, FDOL and #creativeHE (collective case study approach, Stake, 1995)

• The findings led to 11 categories of descriptions grouped in 3 pools: collaboration, course, boundary crossing and their variations.

• The final phenomenographic output was the outcome space which shows the inter-relationships of the categories of descriptions.

• A collaborative open learning framework was developed based on the discussion of the findings.

• Background information and demographics of the collective case study we collected through 2 survey instruments

Initial survey, 19 Qs (n=25)

Final survey, 3 Qs (n=22)

Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22) (data collection method)

Pool 1 Course

4 categories of description

Pool 3 Collaboration 3 categories of

description

Pool 2 Boundary crossing


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 (background information, demographics)

Collective case study (Stake, 1995)

RQ1 and RQ2Disc.

Open-ness in

HE

Digital tech and frame-works

Learning with

others in groups

Academic development

Literature

Researcher’s positioning

p.105

Motivations:• Be learners and experience

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

Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25) ---- 33 study participants in total

studies

worklocation

age

work placeformal/informal study

Group members 77%On own 13%Didn’t participate 5%

Study timeUp to 3 hrs 54%3-5 hours 14%Over 5 hours 32%

Final survey responses (n=22)

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-focusHigh product expectations

Individual focus Process-focusLow product expectations

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

6.2RQ2: 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 collaborator Immersive collaborator

• 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


• Milestone cohort activities• Process

• Some asynchronous group activities• Sporadic synchronous group activities• Light touch facilitation

• Social relationships, community• Regular asynchronous group activities• Regular synchronous activities• Regularly facilitation (push – pull)• Co-created products

Design considerations

Collaborating institutions

Organisation, and facilitation team

Learner profiles and cross-boundary considerations

Learning and Teaching approach

Group work and community

Resources, tools and open licensing

Accreditation /Recognition

Online / Offline mode Course outcomes and activities

Timing and scheduling

Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development

Visualisation by Elizabeth Walshaw

This research is important because…

• To break free from conservatism in academic development, to model innovations in learning and teaching and to enable staff to experience these first hand

• Seize opportunities presented by the importance placed in academic development as teaching moved centre stage, technological advancements (digital, social media), the open education movement.

• Respond to the call from the sector for more collaborative, connected and open provision across institutions in the UK and further afield.

• To transform practices, practitioners, how academic development is practised currently and put forward a case for new practices.

• Propose an alternative model to drive quality of teaching, against the competitive model linked to financial gains proposed by the government with the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (BIS, 2016).

I reviewed the literature around…

• Collaborative learning

• Open education in HE

• Digital technologies for learning and design frameworks

• Academic development in the UK

The main methodological limitations (p. 143)

• Researcher as participant (facilitator and researcher): bracketing measures to suspend judgement, reflective diary, transcript and findings shared with participants to identify if these resonate with some of their experiences, p. 147

• Piloting of the data collection (Survey piloting p. 144, interview piloting p. 144, suitability test outcomes from interview piloting: Too many questions, responses provided without need of all questions to be asked, Adobe > Skype) to strengthen research design

Limitations of this study

• Study participants: the majority where learning in groups. Therefore large proportion of data from these. More autonomous participants may have provided different range of data.

• Sole researcher: no peer discussions due to the nature of this research (assessed). Addressed through reflective diary capturing research process for the reader to decide on credibility and trustworthiness of the study.

• Developing as a phenomenographic interviewer: Over-preparation of questions. Less questions provided rich reflective responses as they were open. Adjustments were made as interviews progressed. Pilot interview also helped. A more organic approach to be adopted in the future.

My contribution to knowledge and practice…

In the area of open academic development

Contribution to theory• Gaining new insights into collaborative open learning

patterns (RQ1) (immersive and selective collaboration > anyone (staff, students, public + online and offline)

• Identification of course features that foster cross-boundary collaborative open learning (RQ2) (facilitation, elastic design, community)

Contribution to practice• Development of a collaborative open learning framework

(design features, learning patterns, learner needs)

Directions for future research

• Testing the collaborative open learning framework in practice

• A case-study free approach for data collection with a different sample

• Study the open facilitator experience

7 points about this study

• Teaching excellence framework in the UK to raise quality of teaching based on a competitive model with financial incentives for universities

• I propose instead collaboration and openness to engage academics in CPD, change practices and innovate

• I explored the collaborative open learning experience in two openly licensed cross-institutional academic development courses (collective case study) using phenomenography, how collaborative open learning is experienced, what design features influence this experience

• I interviewed 22 study participants from the collective case• I found out how participants experienced collaborative open learning (as

immersive and selective collaborators) and what design features influenced that experience (design, facilitation, community)

• boundary crossing significant factor of the experience• construction of an openly licensed cross-boundary collaborative open

learning framework (leaner patterns, learner needs, design characteristics) for other academic developers to adapt.

Viva questions

General questions

How did you develop interest in this area?

• Open practitioner, committed to academic development and exploring approaches that could attract academics to engage in CPD

• Fascinated and curious how open learning is experienced especially when people come together online

• Seeds for this work in my MSc dissertation online PBL pilot, academic developers and participants in different UK institutions on PgCerts to learn together (focus assessment and feedback).

What are the reasons for conducting this study?

• Open education is becoming more wide-spread.

• Exploring how we can harness it in the context of academic development and model innovative practices that engage academics in alternative forms of CPD

• Gaining insights into the collaborative open learning experience and influencing future practices through findings and framework

How do you feel about your thesis?

• A sense of achievement (new insights, framework) useful for own practice and hopefully others.

• We talk a lot and how to engage academics in CPD. The framework developed provides new insights an alternative for academic development that models an innovative approach in the area of open education through cross-boundary collaboration that has the potential to transform our offer.

Could you summarise key points of your thesis?

• I conducted a phenomenographic study to explore the collaborative open learning experience in two open cross-institutional academic courses.

• The findings evidence that collaborative open learning was lived as an immersive and selective experience in these two courses. 22 participants

• A framework was constructed based on the discussion of the findings (anyone, anywhere, anyhelp, anyhow, learner as community, course as community) that can be considered by developers who are interested in adopting alternative practices

What was the most interesting/surprising discovery you made?

What emerged through the data:

• Boundary crossing and its importance for the study participants in the two open cross-institutional academic development courses, how this shaped their experience.

• Collaborative open learning patterns and how both were dynamic and valuable for engagement and development.

• That open courses also extend learning linked to local/offline support communities.

How has your view of your research topic changed?

• New insights how collaborative open learning is experienced (immersive, selective but dynamic patterns)

• New dimensions brought to light:

– Boundary crossing and role in collaborative open learning

– Offline dimension of open learning

– Importance of community/communities

What did you enjoy the most? What are you the most proud of and why?

• The synthesis of the findings as it is a creative process.

• Making meaning out of chaos to construct the categories of description, the outcome space and then the openly licensed framework that can be used in practice to make a difference to how academic development is practiced.

What did you find particularly challenging?

• Analysing 100,999 words of transcript. The analysis process was complex and frustrating at times (reflective diary).

• Initially using Nvivo as it was a new tool for me.

• Gaining confidence in the methodology and trusting what the data was telling me.

How did this research change you as a researcher? What have you learnt from the

process of doing a PhD?• Through this complex and long process, I have learnt

that I have endurance and persistence and deal with challenges to complete such a research project.

• Recognised the value of reflection during the research process to question myself and build confidence.

• I have become more confident with phenomenography and have started helping other phenomenographers.

• Helped me develop MA supervision skills which I have started applying.

What would you do differently if you were starting out all over again? How could you

improve your work?• Interviews: a more organic approach, less

questions, which did happen as the interviews progressed

• Background information could also have been collected through interviews. So no surveys at all or just one initial survey.

• Perhaps trying a case study free approach? More diverse data around the collaborative open learning experience?

Did you do anything wrong? Why?

• There are always ways to improve.

• I was a relative new phenomenographer. This was a big study.

• I could have simplified the process. The two surveys were probably not needed.

• Too many questions in interviews.

• Could perhaps collect data from open community NOT from specific case studies (added complexity).

Why is this research important? Why is this problem you tackled worth tackling?

• Insights provide opportunities for consideration of an alternative approach to academic development and model this using technology-supported and open pedagogical approaches.

• It provides evidence how collaborative open learning is experienced in such settings by academics and what this meant to them.

• It shows that academics value this type of professional development.

What are the main issues and debates in this subject area?

• Raise quality of teaching through stimulating and immersive CPD for academics as students.

• Academic development more current and model innovative: At the moment often institutional and workshop-based. Still challenges with technology often separated.

• Opportunity to harness open education: to achieve the above and create sustainable and innovative models.

What are the strongest features of your research?

• The outcome space as a synthesis of the categories of description provide a clear visual map of the categories of description and how these are interlinked.

• The outcome space enabled the construction of a framework to make the findings usable for practice.

• That the work can be used in practice.

What contribution does your thesis make? What have you done that merits a PhD?

• Carried out work that hasn’t been done before.

• Insights into the collaborative open learning experience (learner patterns: selective, immersive collaborator)

• Insights into the design features to foster collaborative open learning

• Synthesis of findings led to the development of a new framework for collaborative open learning

In one sentence, what is your thesis?

• The thesis provides insights into how cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development was experienced and opportunities for practice through the findings and the framework constructed.

What is the idea that binds your thesis together?

• Open professional development can make a real difference to engaging academics in CPD in cross-boundary settings that foster collaborative learning.

What are the weakest features of your research? What are the defects of your study?

• Majority of study participants worked in groups (77%)

• Sole researcher as it was a doctoral study. Validation by fellow researchers would have strengthened the findings

• Researcher’s development as a phenomenographic interviewer: sticking to the script initially but moved away progressively, more organic approach

Explain the steps you carried out in your research. What was the chronology of your

study?

• My interest in this field led me to the formulation of research questions around collaborative learning, how it is experienced and designed into an open course in academic development.

• Selected 2 open courses to collect the data. Had access to these and they had collaborative learning features.

• Courses were offered and phenomenographic data and I collected via 22 interviews.

• Survey instruments helped construct the collective case study, background information.

• The analysis followed. Categories and outcomes space where formed.• Literature review was conducted based on the findings but also the research

questions (collaboration, openness, use of technologies, frameworks, academic development, boundary crossing).

• Discussion linked to RQ1 and RQ2 followed and the framework was developed (RQ3).

• Have been writing systematically from early on.• But after I have had the findings, I wrote more systematically the discussion and

conclusion happened progressively through many iterations and reviews.

What were the crucial research decisions you made?

• Defining the focus of study, research questions and outputs

• Deciding on the appropriate methodology

• How best to collect data to help articulate a response to the research questions

• To systematically work on this study over the last 4.5 years despite a full-time job and a young family

Where did the research questions come from?

• I am an open practitioner, open projects.• Value collaboration.• Know that collaboration can make a difference to

academic development. Managerial approaches within institutions don’t work (Crawford, 2009).

• Academics reach out to external disciplinary networks and communities, belonging.

• I wanted evidence how collaborative open learning is experienced in cross-institutional open courses and impact this has on engagement in CPD and impact this has on engagement in CPD.

Did the research questions change along the way?

• YES they did.

• Initial questions were submitted together with the PhD proposal, before the study began.

• I kept a record of how the questions evolved over time at the top of the annotated table of content for the whole thesis.

• RQs changed 6 times. BUT changes are small often to bring more clarity and focus.

• See next slide >>>

RQsInitial RQs Final RQs

RQ1 How can collaborative learning approaches be used to create positive opportunities for collaboration and peer learning in open cross-institutional Academic Development courses?

How are open cross-institutional academic development courses that have been designed to provide opportunities for collaborative open learning experienced by learners?

RQ2 What design factors and enabling aspects promote deep engagement and effective learning in open cross-institutional Academic Development courses?

Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses most strongly influence learners' collaborative open learning experience and how?

RQ3 Drawing upon research findings from research questions 1 and 2, what would be the key features of a proposed collaborative design framework for open online cross-institutional academic development courses?

Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key characteristics of a proposed collaborative open learning framework for open cross-institutional academic development courses? Note: earlier version… what are…

Did you access other thesis?

• My exploration with the literature took me to the following– (academic CPD) >>>Karen Crawford’s thesis (2009) CPD post-

and pre-1992 institutions CPD, multi-case exploration, 36 academic staff > findings: negative effects on managerial models, external networks.

– (postgrad students) >>> p. 77> Chung-Ming Ou (2012) Dynamics among non-English native speaking online learners and coping mechanism < cross-cultural online collaboration (grounded theory), 40 postgrad students in US and Taiwan on Education Psychology programmes, small groups using PBL> findings need for “collaboration-friendly” approaches to create a community, also flexibility and facilitator, peer support. Issues with English were overcome through support.

How do you define cross-institutional academic development?

• Collaboration among and across institutions that is of informal nature.

• Grassroots development driven by practitioners based on the idea of “little OER” (Wenger, 2011).

How do you define open educational practices?

Courses, activities, practices supported by digital technologies using the internet and social and open media that utilise OER and often made available under a creative commons licence. Organised by individuals, institution or groups that are opened-up extensions of existing formal or informal activities or new. Open badges are often awarded to participants in these and others may be working towards credits.

Strengths: what are the highlights of the thesis? What might others find valuable?

The cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework.

The two patterns, immersive and selectiveOpen learning as online and offline dimensionValue of boundary crossing.

Weaknesses: what parts are difficult to explain? What are the limitations of what you’ve done?

The use of a collective case study. Why not data from the wider open community?

Findings related to the collective case study but deep insights.

Opportunities: how might you extend your work? What can you do now?

Consider the facilitator experience.Incorporate in the collaborative open learning framework.

New study that brings learner and facilitator experience together.

Threats: how might someone criticise what you’ve done? Are there any potential problems?

My dual role, facilitator/organiser and researcher.

Personal bias and open educator (activist) BUT phenomenography enabled me to step outside (bracketing as much as possible) and include all voices.

Source http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/

http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/

What skills have you developed?

• Carry out phenomenographic research with greater confidence.

• Develop phenomenographic interview techniques further.

• Systematic approach to a large scale research project.

• Networking for research purposes.

• MA supervision skills developed further and applying already.

In what ways would you say you achieved what you set out to achieve?• I set out to explore the collaborative open learning

experience in cross-institutional academic development courses (2 cases).

• I did this through a phenomenographic study and gained deep insights into the experience and identifying also specific design features that share that experience.

• My findings have been synthesised in the proposed framework.

• Boundary crossing is something that became fundamental to my exploration. A fascinating discovery in the context of academic development.

Questions linked to the literature

What informed the literature review?

• Research questions provided a starting point.

• Started reading broad areas linked to these: collaborative learning, open education, academic development, design frameworks supported by digital technologies and social media.

• After the phenomenographic analysis, I did most of the literature review. This is informed by the themes that emerged through the data, such as crossing boundaries, cooperative and collaborative learning.

What strategies did you use to identify literature?

• Previous experience/knowledge/research

• Professional communities (SEDA, ALT, open education etc.) mailing lists.

• Professional open networks (SEDA, GO-GN) and national and international conferences

• Citations in academic papers

• Academia.edu, research gate.

List 3/5 key people in your field and explain how they influenced your work/ What are the 3/5 most important papers which

relate to your thesis?

• Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education, more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…

• Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources, highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)

• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)

• Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)

• Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)

• Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)> cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)

• EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based), interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)

• EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors > motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)

What published work is closest to yours? How is your work different?

• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)

• Researched professional development of academics, collective case study, interviews

• My work:– Different starting point > open, cross-institutional CPD– Studied the collaborative open learning experience in these settings– Findings confirm the value of cross-boundary CPD has for academics– Could be seen as evidence to support Crawford’s discoveries.

You make only limited reference to MOOCs. How do you explain this?

• Lit review driven by the themes that emerges through the data.

• Courses used in study were not MOOCs.• MOOCs (2008) started as a form of open educational

practices with a focus on extremely large scale implementation. Since 2012 beyond the initial cMOOCs(connectivist MOOCs) based on the ethos of open education, other MOOC types xMOOCs have appeared with commercialised features and dimensions.

• MOOCs have been reviewed (p. 43) but only briefly as the courses of this study are OEP small scale interventions (Ehlers, 2011a) p. 44

Which are the areas you didn’t focus strongly in your literature review and why? Why did you use certain

literatures and theories and not others?

• Literature reviewed based on the findings. The findings were driving to discuss these.

• Therefore some literature more in the periphery… such as MOOCs, value of OER/Open Ed, the Teaching Excellence Framework for example, plus value of OER, open education.

• Data collected in advance of TEF…• Value of OER, Open Education more generally• My focus was on the collaborative open learner

experience

Tell us about the theoretical framework that underpins your research. What theories inform

your work?

Theoretical framework

Open education


Collaborative learning

Technology-supported frameworks

Cross-boundary

Collaborative open

learning

“learning from collaboration” + “process goals”

(Dillenbourg, 1999)

Democratising open ed

(Lane, 2009)

“little OER” (Weller, 2011)

Proactive external CPD

(Crawford, 2009)

community of inquiry (Garrison,

Anderson & Archer, 2000, 2010)

cognitive, social, facilitator presence, belonging,

facilitator support (=growing

importance)

Gap: collaboration as a process, especially in the context of open ed

Gap: more inclusive models needed (Lane, 2009); scaffolding (McAuley et al., 2010); cross-institutional, cross-boundary (Hall and Smyth, 2016)

Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative learning & teaching (2014); more outwards facing CPD (Craword, 2009); harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a; Redecker et al. 2011)

Community building ac dev model restricted to internal (Popovic & Plank, 2016)

Gap: NO framework for collaborative learning in open ed. EE opening-up framework mentions cross-institutional collaboration and collab learning BUT no details how. (Inamorato de Santos, 2016)

Boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams & networks: Finland US, horizontal

practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views (Engeström, Engeström & Kärkkäinen,

1995)

Public facing open scholar > informal open communities (child welfare community

observed divide academia, public, subject communities FB) (Coughlan & Perryman, 2012)

HE application: boundary objects animal slaughtering> diversity, increase trust, reduce

misunderstandings, misinterpretations can occur and conflict , strategies to overcome

these important (Algers, 2016)

On p.22 you state that academic development as a whole could break free from conservatism and seize opportunities technologies present

(Beetham, 2015). Can you explain what you mean?

• Changes to PgCert programmes and tech now more used > Initial development often

• Ongoing development institutionally often relies on workshops, curriculum dev/review activities, increasingly SoTL

• Often inwards facing• Need to learn from conferences• Open education• Be more experimental, take risks and collaborative beyond

institutional borders on a regular basis. • In the end we help raise the quality of teaching across the

sector• Find attractive ways to engage academics in CPD

Questions linked to the methodology

Outline your research design




Pool 1 Course



description





Ph

eno

men

ogr

aphy

(Mar

ton

, 19

81

)Case study 1

FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)


+Surveys findings



RQ1 and RQ2Disc.

Open-ness in

HE


Learning with

others in groups


Literature


p.105

What are the limitations in the design?

• Collective case study approach to collect data: Findings are linked to these two courses. This could also be its strength as it provides deep insights into the experience in the collective case study.

• Collaborative open learner experience captured without facilitators. What would facilitators’ experience add?

Why did you choose phenomenography as your methodology? What are the advantages?

• Epistemology: subjectivism > Theoretical perspective: phenomenology > methodology > phenomenological research (interpretivist phenomenographic subjectivist perspective) > Methods: interview (Crotty, 1998 research framework, design elements) (p.103)

• I was interested in studying the experience of collaborative open learners• Enables the study of the lived experience and its qualitatively different variations,

therefore suitable and an attempt to be holistic, not advocacy research (which there is a lot linked to open ed, Weller et al. 2017 chapter)

• Is holistic, not linked to individuals but describes the qualitatively different variations of the collective experience, useful to identify patterns and construct a framework

• All data is used, all voices are heard, all perspectives• Has been developed for an HE research to enhance learning and teaching and

would help answer my research questions which are linked to the experience of open learners.

• To enhance learning and teaching (Ference Marton, 1981)

What are the main criticisms about phenomenography?

• Data analysed as a collective > individual ignored? (Saljö, 1996)

• Data analysis just based on guidelines (Marton, 1981)• Findings often seen as hierarchical, correct and less correct

views? (Webb, 1997 looking at surface/deep learning, Entwistle’s work)

• Suspending judgement? Neutrality really possible?• Reliability > but increased if reviewed by others (Sandberg,

1999) but use of bracketing strategies can help reliability and trustworthiness

• More research expected, will remain within HE research and not become mainstream (Malcolm Tight, 2015)

Why did you not use variation theory?

• I discovered it at a later stage in this study.

• An interesting methodology that seems to move responsibility of identifying variations to the participants themselves. So participants are more involved. <variations as experienced by the experiencer> < awareness of variations>a more participatory approach?

• I want to study this further and consider for the future.

• Variation theory (Pang, 2003)

Why did you not use Grounded theory?

• There are similarities.

• Starting from the data, codes, concepts and then categories.

• But grounded theory is about generating concepts to build theory.

• Not description of experiences.

• I wanted to explore conceptions of experiences as described and their qualitatively different variations.

What is the difference between phenomenography and phenomenology (pp. 103-104)

Phenomenography Phenomenology

A person’s lived experience of a phenomenon (experiencing red)

The study of the consciousness of the phenomenon (red)

Aim is to gain insights into the variation of the qualitatively different ways a group experiences a phenomenon, how they are reflected and described > people’s conceptions of the world

The phenomenon is the focus, the phenomenon is uncovered

Aim is to study the lived experience of a phenomenon with a focus on the experience itself, the essence of the experience, how the phenomenon is

Second order research perspective> description of individuals experiences as a collective. The world as described.

First order research perspective> Researcherfocusses on the experience

Analysis leads to conceptions and the outcome space.

Analysis leads to the identification of meaning units.

Learning and teaching experiences, specifically developed for this purpose.

Commonly used to study affective, emotional intense experiences

What precautions were taken against bias?

• In phenomenography ALL data is used, so no filtering out. Identifying qualitatively different variations is its strength.

• I put strategies in place to consciously suspend judgment and minimise data contamination (reflective diary, asking self “Why have I done this/say this?”, sharing transcript with participants for accuracy, findings, outcomes space and framework)

• The framework was peer reviewed by researchers from across the world (11)

• Bracketing, to suspend/minimise judgement as much as possible Bracketing >>> only partially possible (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000) / Selective bracketing (Adawi, Berlund, Botth & Ingerman (2001) p. 112. Reduction in contamination awareness raising, managing this through specific strategies >>> See next one

• Thesis written in 3rd person

What bracketing strategies did you use?

• Whole thesis written in the 3rd person • My voice in prologue, epilogue only which sit outside the thesis• Interview questions were open, listened carefully, didn’t assume,

asked for further information, details during the interview.• Kept a reflective diary (data collection and data analysis),

transparency to the process• Returned draft transcript to participants for checking• Shared draft chapter 5 (findings) with participants I interviewed• Didn’t conduct any literature review during the analysis stage• Conducted literature review after the analysis had been completed• Was inclusive and captured all voices in the transcript, dominant

and less dominant and all qualitatively different variations• Coded all transcript• Use extracts in findings from all participants, additional ones in

appendix

What does your reflective diary include?

• The phenomenographic analysis process• Some reflections on the interview process

(challenges with language, issue experienced as facilitator-researcher)

• Information about participant researcher• Images that capture the process (NVivo

screenshots, drawings of the draft outcome space)

• Dilemmas and challenges during the analysis• It is extensive and can be found in Appendix 5.2

What were the main ethical issues conducting this research? How did you deal with them?

• Power relationship as I was a researcher and facilitator• Aware of the risk, professional integrity and values, reflection on

the process, bracketing strategies• Participation in study was voluntary, optional and open to all

learners in the two courses.• Nobody was advantaged or disadvantaged from participating or not

in the study and could leave the study at any point.• Surveys had no must complete questions.• Interview questions open.• Study participants who were also working towards credits and

would be assessed by researcher at the end of the semester/term where reminded in information sheet and at the beginning at the interview that their participation in study will not influence marking of work, which did sit outside the open courses.

How did you decide when you had enough participants?

• I studied the literature around phenomenography and participants.

• Optimum number depends on the study (Sin, 2010; Trigwell, 2000; Sandberg, 1996) (pp. 115-116)

• But between 12-20 for formal studies comes up.

• Tight (2016) says 20 or less.

• 20 is usually enough (Larsson & Holström, 2007) to discover different ways of understanding a phenomenon.

• Therefore I conducted around 20 interviews (22 in total)

Talk us through the data analysis method you used.

Followed Ference Marton (1986) guidelines BUT no template or standard process, just guidelines (p.115, p.138)

Phenomenographic analysis in steps >>>

Background information about the collective case using two survey instrument (initial, final survey)

Individual remote

interviews

Preparing Transcripts

Checking of transcripts for

accuracy by participants

Pool of meanings

• Iterative process in NVivo

Categories of description

Outcome space

Writing up

Sharing findings with participants

(Ch 5, 6, 7)

Reflective diary

Phenomenographic analysis in steps

What challenges did you encounter with the data analysis?

• Amount of data: The data were 100,999 words. This is a huge amount of data to analyse.

• Software: Initially the software used presented a challenge as it was new to me (Nvivo).

• Process itself: phenomenographic analysis based on guidelines (Ference Marton, 1981), not rigid process, good when confident but a challenge when new to the methodology.

• Iterative process: knowing when the categories and outcome space are stable

• Sole researcher: Not been able to carry out the analysis with somebody for debate and confirmation.

Why did you use Nvivo to analyse your interview responses?

• Large amount of data• 22 interviews, 100,999 words in total.• While challenges to learn this software tool, it

was useful during the iterative data analysis process.

• Make changes easily and quickly and have overview of these changes.

• Used extracts in reflective diary as well, to capture the analysis process and the different stages.

How do you know your findings are correct?

• Trustworthy and reliable as it is an explorative qualitative study.

• Transparency of the process: – Reflective diary to bracket and minimise data

contamination– Confirmed transcripts with participants.– Findings (categories, outcome space, discussion and

framework) shared with participants– Included quotes from all participants in thesis (each

participant has a unique identifier)

• Peer review of framework by 11 practitioners

What alternatives methodological approaches did you consider and why

did you reject these?• Researcher participant: I could consider action research (advocacy

research) especially as I had a dual role (facilitator and researcher)• Not used because:

– I was particularly interested in the participants’ experience – More holistic research needed beyond advocacy (Weller et al. 2017,

book chapter about OER in new edited book)

• Considered also not using a collective case study approach to collect data (both courses had designed in collaborative learning features) BUT more practical to stay with the approach taken. I thought it would have been too difficult to identify participants otherwise.

• Could have used one of the pedagogical frameworks for analysis (Community of practice, Wenger; 5-stage model, Salmon) I reviewed these with others in the literature.

How and why did you choose to focus on these particular case studies?

• I had access to these as the organiser

• Both were cross-institutional open courses in the area of academic development, linked to PgCert/MA in at least one institution

• Both had collaborative open learning features designed in but different ones (PBL and more flexible approach)

• They were offered in the timeframe of this study

Questions linked to findings

How did you develop the categories of description?

• It was an iterative process.• Initially I read all transcripts multiple times and annotated these on

paper.• Moved everything into NVivo.• Started creating nodes using the key interview questions/ themes

around collaboration.• I could see that the data overall could be separated out into 3 pools.

(course, collaboration, boundary crossing)• I moved things around many times and at some point I had to start

from scratch as it didn’t feel that I was getting anywhere. • At some point categories stabilised and I didn’t feel the need to

make more changes. • I then shared these with participants. They could see their

experience represented.• I documented the process in the reflective journal. I included

challenges and dilemmas.

How did you develop the outcome space?

• I carefully looked at the categories of description again in the 3 pools.

• I started from trying to identify relationships among the categories on paper, using flip chart.

• Iterative process, various forms before this became stable.

• Documented in the reflective journal

Can you describe the main findings in a few sentences?

• There are 2 patterns of collaborative open learning, selective and immersive

• Community plays a key role for immersive collaboration

• Facilitator support is vital

• Boundary crossing enriches the experiences, motivate people to participate in collaborative open learning

• Design needs to be flexible

• Development is ongoing, a community can play this role

• Collaborative open learning has an offline dimension









Stru

ctu

ral f

acto

rs (

Are

a A

)Li

ved

exp

erie

nce

(A

rea

B)



Immersive


Group focus




p.201







Learner needs















p.237

On p.260 (conclusions) you state that the framework is for those interesting in developing “cross-boundary-friendly” collablearning opportunities. Can you explain what you mean?

• My findings confirmed the value of boundary crossing in the context of academic development.

• The framework raises awareness of boundary crossing, opportunities and challenges and strategies to implement this type of learning based on evidence from this study.

• Specific strategies such as choice, diverse grouping, online/offline learning, community and focus of collaboration on the process can contribute to create “cross-boundary friendly” settings also with the support of facilitators.

How do you think your work takes forward or develops the literature in this field?

• New insights into the literature around collaborative learning, strengthen the importance of collaboration as a process (Dillenbourgh, 1999)

• Adds to the body of literature around open education that is not presenting an advocate perspective.

• Adds to the body of literature around boundary crossing, no literature found regarding this in the context of academic development.

• Strengthens literature of role supported community plays for professional development and cross-institutional collaboration for CPD purposes.

What are the implications of your findings? How could the results be used?

• Create alternative ways to offer academic development, more collaborative, cross-institutional and cross-boundary experience, staff, students and the public learning together

• Alternative CPD opportunities for academic staffwithin cross-boundary communities

• Further research in this area, the dimensions of the framework could be used as the basis, also the categories of description and the outcome space

To what extent do your contributions generalise?

• Findings provided deep insights into the experience linked to the collective case study (2 courses) for future enhancement of these courses. Framework could be used.

• Relevant to other academic developers who consider offering/developing such opened-up courses as these are accredited provision that sit within at least one institution and meet specific criteria that will be relevant to other provision.

• More broadly collaborative learning in other settings, blended and online provision with staff and students.

Who would easily agree with you? Who would find your work useful?

• Academic developers who are interested in the ideas of open learning and the opportunities this brings.

• Other open practitioners who would like to implement, review collaborative learning strategies in open/online and blended settings.

• I hope that practitioners engage critically with this work and test the framework

Who would quickly disagree with you?

• Practitioners/institutions with a different philosophical starting point (not open/not collaborative).

• When/where competition is more important than collaboration would find it challenging.

• Academic developers and managers who perhaps see these ideas as a threat that they could loose their jobs or others resistant to change more generally? (Dastur, 2017 in the context of open, academic departments)

• I hope that this work will be a stimulus for reflection.

On p. 251 you state that you have given the framework for peer review. Could you summarise the key observations?

• It provided deeper understanding about collab open learning• Framework seen as valuable for course designers• New dimension of boundary crossing was recognised• They saw the opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration to overcome

political barriers (managerial ac dev)• Also seen useful for MOOCs• Alternative versions could be developed for learners, designers etc.• Well structured, clear links to findings

Questions• 3 dimensions: patterns and needs together, BUT course characteristics

somehow separate? Other perspective? >>> courses had collab features so it was natural that participants would comment on how these shaped their experience. NOT other perspective

• OER and open licensing didn’t feature strongly was a surprise for one reviewern>>> but my work was about the collab open experience, for me not a surprise as it was an immersive experience

Future facing questions

What advice would you give to a research student entering this area?

• A support network is invaluable

• Read widely, go and present at conferences

• Keep a reflective journal (blog)

• Work systematically and regularly

• Agree support strategies with supervisory team

• Persistence and resilience, when experiencing difficulties take a break, share with a friend/family member

To what developments could your ideas lead and how could it be done?

• Recognising value and contribution of open learning in the context of professional development, link to formalised learning

• Spreading of diverse pick ‘n’ mix academic development approaches > increase engagement in CPD/ capture more complete picture of current CPD that happens beyond an institution

• Acknowledge the importance cross-boundary communities and establish these to foster diverse development

How long will this work remain innovative?

• Innovation is dynamic. Concepts, ideas evolve and this will too. If practitioners see value in this work, it will spread and could become normalised practice. Then it will stop being novel and innovative.

• As a practitioner researcher my interest is in working on the boundaries, as these change so will my exploration of the new opportunities opening up

• Innovation is something that is dynamic and changes all the time, so will my research

What developments have there been in the field since you began your PhD?• Sustainability of open ed discussed more, also at OE Global Cape Town 2017 (not in thesis, my

focus was on experience) Extensive funding a few years ago, but what is happening with projects after funding stops?

• More open ed research since 2010, still very new discipline (Weller et al. 2017) more advocacy research, holistic research missing

• The need to democratise of open education, Global North + Global South – still a gap, imperialistic approach

• Resources > Practices > Communities ALSO open textbooks• MOOCs open > commercialisation > closed > professional training• Open > boundary crossing (Connected Curriculum work by (Dilly Fung, 2017 OER mentioned once,

no mention of open education at all, focus on inquiry-based learning); Porous University (Ronald Macintyre, 2017)

• 2016 new book around Ac Development (Baume and Popovic) Models of ac development (Popovic and Plank (2017) chapter> ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-based’ NOT about open, not about external or cross-institutional, focus still on the institution

• More discussion about open pedagogy especially 2017 (David Wiley, Martin Weller, 2017) but still ill defined usually on the use of OER, theory and practice not brought together

• Mainstreaming OER mainly but also open education• Discussion around digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu) continues, new article August

2017 focus on mapping activity and how this is helping practitioners to discuss and review their digital practices

Have you thought about publications? Which journals are appropriate?

Ideas for papers• The design of the framework• The dimension of boundary crossing• Open educational communities• Review of HE including academic development and learning technology in the UK

(also timelines)Open access journals

– Open Praxis (https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis) by the International Council for Open and Distance Education, global partnership, links to UNESCO and partly funded by Norway

– The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) Athabasca University

– Journal of Applied Academic Practice, cross-institutional collaboration led by Edinburgh Napier University, learning, teaching and academic development, broad rimit(http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP)

– ALT Journal Association for Learning Technology, open access https://www.alt.ac.uk/topic/alt-journal-open-access

I would have liked to publish in an open access Academic development journal but there isn’t one. It is a shame that Innovations in Education and Teaching International, International Journal for Academic Development (SEDA) BUT open select option (gold, where you have to pay to publish… about £2000/article)

https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl

http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP

https://www.alt.ac.uk/topic/alt-journal-open-access

What are your plans post-PhD?

• Continue exploring collaborative open learning, related research activities.

• Implement the framework (FOS).

• Facilitator perspective

• Framework for open learning that incorporates collaborative learning.

Unusual questions

Why are you doing this PhD at your age? (from Prof. Sally Brown)

– Research into a new area that is dear to my heart as an open practitioner, inquiry into how it works

– Produce something that is valuable for my own future practice and others

– It is never too late. Learning is lifelong > Γηράσκω αεί διδασκόμενος

Is there a question we should have asked you? (Dr Need Yasin)

• If I would make any changes to the framework I developed before writing it up for publication/implementing it in practice.

• I would change “learner” to “learning” and “collaborator” to “collaboration” so that it is clearer that these are dynamic patterns. So immersive and selective collaboration instead of collaborator, a person, as both patterns used by the same person. This change would bring additional clarity.

• Similar issues with deep, surface, strategic learning instead of learner (paper: student approaches to learning, Oxford uni) but also issue with learning styles (Frank Coffield)

Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for cross-institutional academic development


learner > learningcollaborator > collaboration

Chapter summaries

Chapter 1

• Overview of study and context• Aim to explore collaborative open learning in cross-institutional ac dev• Definition of collab open learning: in groups supported by facilitators using

OEP / OEP = activities, courses, practices networked, social media usually openly licensed and make use of OER.

• Context ac dev since 1970s, periphery > centre, massification > diversification, teaching quality linked to financial gains (TEF, 2016) also linked to student experience and learning, BUT managerial approach don’t seem to work (Di Napoli, 2014; Crawford, 2009)

• My work: collab open development engage staff > drive quality, and opportunity to design/implement innovative solutions to immerse staff as students to experience and prepare and consider for own practice

• RQs> 1 experience, 2 design features, 3 framework• Contribution> 1 framework, 2 insights into collab open learning 3 key

design feature

Chapter 2


Open education




Cross-boundary

Collaborative open

learning

“learning from collaboration” (Dillenbourg,

1999)


(Lane, 2009)“little OER”

(Weller, 2011)


(Crawford, 2009)




facilitator support (growing

importance)





Boundary crossing in learning and expertise in teams &

networks: Finland US, horizontal practice, breaks

monopoly of expert, diverse views (Engeström, Engeström

& Kärkkäinen, 1995)

Chapter 2 (learning with others)

Learning with others• Cooperative + collab learning in schools in 1960 also unis to (PBL Mc

Master 1960s med ed) • Coop – individual tasks (experiential learning Dewey, 1938 group goal• Collab – social interaction (social constructivism, Vygotsky 1930s)

collective• Not clear distinction coop, collab• Product vs process (Dillenbourg, 1999) “learning from collaboration” focus

more on process “ > “collaboration as learning” (ner &goss, 2015)• Group membership size depends on purpose, collab learning as choice• Relationships (theory of cooperation competition (Deutsch, 1949) > Social

interdependence theory (Johnson 1970; Johnson & Johnson 1999) = positive, negative and no interdependence > self interest to mutual interest, context cooperative learning, but also relevant to online collablearning (Sharples et al. 2016)

Chapter 2 (open ed)Open ed phase 1: OER, phase 2: OEP (Ehlers et al. 2011); conversations about open pedagogy now starting > but weak at the moment 5R (Wiley).• Not new concept, also antiquity Plato academy, Sunday schools, correspondence ed BUT not digital and openly licensed• 1970 open source movement, 1969 OU in UK• 2001 MIT open courseware; 2006 OU openlearn• 2001 OER Unesco term; 2002 cc licences; 2008 MOC; 2010 open textbooks (US); 2012 open badges (Mozilla)• Open ed issues: cc lack of control, authenticity, plagiarism, open textbooks extensive funding; open bades credibility?, MOOCs/OER imperialistic, a few for

the many?, English language dominating? Alternative voices silenced > exclusion, lack of facilitation• Little and big OER (Weller, 2011) also OE as continuum (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014) and EC (Inamorato de Santos, 2016) opening up framework (includes

collaboration and pedagogy but NOT details about collaborative learning how, cross-institutional collab is there)• MOOCs facilitation as co-learner (new concept Bayne & Ross, 2014) mainly absent in realityBoundary crossing• Specialisation creates boundaries• Engestroem et al (1995) study: boundary crossing creates horizonal working practices in a learning in teams networks context• Akkermann & Bakker 2011: lit review (178 articles): diversity perspectives/practices; understanding own and others, transforming behaviour/practice• In Open Ed usually boundary crossing as formal informal (Conole, 2013a)• Concepts of wider boundary crossing is emerging: Leaky uni (Wall, 2015) uni and local community using dig tech; Levin 2004, democratic HE with public; Hall

& Smyth 2016 unbounded curriculum staff students public• Algers study (2016) boundary objects (animal slaughtering) diverse voices, reduced conflict, but challenge also conflict and misinterpretation• “Public facing scholar” (Coughlan, Perrimean 2012) study public wisdom of the crowd in voluntary sectorCross-institutional dimension• HEFCE 2011 encouraged also EC 2013, 2015 > cross-institutional collab vital for sector wide growth/innovation (HEFCE 2011) share resources/expertise, also

Scotland ‘Building a Smarter Future’ green paper.• Study Morgan & Carey (2009) undergrad students Japan, Russia, Canada learning together asynchronous forum, issue with facilitation, positive> diversity• Orr et al 2015 oER/OEP role for CPD create opportunities for collab, sharing, change practiceStaff-student partnership• Healey et al 2014) benefits for staff and students, 4 areas to collaborate. Challenging in current climate in UK

Chapter 2 (frameworks, digital tech)

Digital tech for collab learning in HE• 1960s first networks, when coop/collab learning started in schools, unis (PBL)• Initially tech used for individual learning, focus on content, software packages• Then 1993 the web, VLE, 2004 social media, 2007 mobile web > collaboration,

interaction• “patchwork strategy” Wenger et al (2009)• Digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu, 2011) based on motivations,

choice• Beetham (2015) staff development needed build digital capacityFrameworks• CSCL (computer supported collab learning) only text at the time, individual/collab

learning, community, facilitation. • Frameworks reviewed, features: facilitator, community, activity, choice• Asynchronous, synchronous model and mobile• Video link valuable for engagement• Language/culture: diversity good for engagement BUT English dominant, can be a

problem for engagement. Difficulties overcome through support (Ou, 2012, phdstudy)

Chapter 2 (ac dev)

• Started in 1970 periphery, small, enthusiasts, then government policies led massification & diversification of HE in UK. Ac dev central stage, professional, evidence-based to enhance quality of teaching, enhancement, teaching qual, prof recognitions. UK HE professionalised (Ramsden, 2008) > timeline p.84

• Ac developers, range of approaches needed, managerial problematic, community makes a difference, longer programmes (PgCer, Parsons et al. 2012) Craword (2009) staff reach outside institition for CPD after Pgcert disicplinary communities, networks. Need for internal and external CPD; Popovic (2016) different ac dev models, one of them is community but internal.

• Dig practices: behind times but change happening. Focus now on building digital capabilities and community, decentralised, distributed, collaborative (Beetham, 2015), Gunn (2011) > offer needs to be more diverse

• Cross-institutional: seen as driver for innovation, CPD engagement (Pawlyshyn et al 2015), early examples: 1990s in London to connect didn’t work, lack of online learning and teaching capacity, 1998 collab PgCert in Scotland polytechnics safe costs/resources; 2012 Gibbs (2012) talks about need for a national dev initiative as more sustainable solution. More outwards facing CPD, first UK MOOC (Oxford Brooks) First steps into learning and teaching in HE, my own work 2010 PgCert informal collabacross UK assess/feedback tasks. Findings importance of community and facilitator to overcome barriers.

Chapter 3

• Research answers questions a. what is happening in the world b. test hypothesis• Qualitative research open ended, interpretations of phenomena of individuals• Social science – naturalistic, people and behaviour in the world• Educational research enhancement of practice RQ1, RQ2 RQ3• Research paradigm: ontology (what reality is), epistemology (relationship between researcher and

reality), methodology (methods to study reality)• Subjectivism (Crotty, 1988) interpretative subjective experience = about phemonena

(phenomenology) and how these are experienced (phenomography)• Positioning of research: subjectivism>phenomenology>phenomenological research• Phenomenography (Marton 1981) qualitatively different variations of lived experience, focus on

collective. interview data collection, collective case (Stake, 1995) 2 settings, deeper understanding about cases as they occur naturally, categories of description: all data, all voices iterative process, guidelines, not a template, final output outcome space, visual representation of logical relationships between categories.

• Participants depends on study, 20 mentioned in many.• Trustworthiness, credibility: transcripts sharing, findings sharing with participants and researchers• Bracketing particially possible: being aware, managing own voice, reflective diary, in interview,

analysis capturing thinking/dilemmas, categories with evidence (quotes)• Methodological challenges:

– pilot interviewing: tech was a problem, only 1 test from Adobe to Skype– Survey piloting 3, changes to survey questions (Final; study time added), Initial: work not just education)– Researcher as participant (bracketing, own courses and relationships)

Chapter 4

• Background information, demographics to construct the collective case study through initial survey (22 Qs) and final survey 3 (Qs) p. 151

INITIAL SURVEY• Countries UK and Sweden but also other countries• Qualifications: Masters, PhD > 84&• HE working: 88%, other: 13% SMALL• Informal study 76%, formal 24%• Age: 76% 35-54• Gender: 64% female, 36% male• Prior experience: social media exp 48%, part in open course 60%, online collab 60%, all above 38%

NONE 6 out of 22 individuals• Engagement intentions: 68% whole course, 36% access resources, interaction elements discussion,

webinar, collab, much lower• Motivation: 100% prof dev, 100% be a learner, networking 93%, 24% study towards qualifications,

88% facilitator support

FINAL SURVNEY• Nature of participation: 77% group member, 13% autonomous• Study time: 54% up to 3 hours, 32% OVER 5 hours• ASKED IF WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED

Motivations:• Be learners and experience

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

Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25)

studies

worklocation

age

work placeformal/informal study

Group members 77%On own 13%Didn’t participate 5%

Study timeUp to 3 hrs 54%3-5 hours 14%Over 5 hours 32%

Final survey responses (n=22)

Chapter 5

Phenomenographic findingsCategories of descriptions directly from analysis and others from interview questions.Limited qualitatively different variations• Bracketing: reflective diary, shared transcripts, chapter 5

with participants. Majority responded recognised their experience

• 3 Pools of Meaning (course, boundary crossing, collaboration)

Outcome space: logical relationships among categories, visualisation• Area A structural factors• Area B lived experience

Pool of Meanings

Categories of description Variations Codes used in

the outcome

space5.2 Pool 1 (Course)

Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientationAiding participation

C1.1

Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagementFostering engagement

C1.2

Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instructionDirective and controllingFacilitative and supportive

C1.3

Open learning as designed for collaboration ConstrainingEnablingEmpowering

C1.4

5.3 Pool 2 (Boundary crossing)

Cross-boundary learning through modes of participation

As a valued informal learning experienceAs a valued mixed mode learning experienceAs a valued opportunity for recognition

C2.1

Cross-boundary learning through time, places and space

As a disconnected experienceAs a continuum

C2.2

Cross-boundary learning through culture and language

As a barrierAs an enrichment C2.3

Cross-boundary learning through diverse professional contexts

As initial discomfortAs a catalyst

C2.4

5.4 Pool 3 (Collaboration)

Collaboration as engagement in learning SelectiveImmersive

C3.1

Collaboration as a means to shared product creation

Product-process tensionFulfilling C3.2

Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of othersValuing the presence of others

C3.3









Stru

ctu

ral f

acto

rs (

Are

a A

)Li

ved

exp

erie

nce

(A

rea

B)



Immersive


Group focus




Chapter 6



6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public) Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015), unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries, informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language, overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)

6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker. Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work, increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller (2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.

6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)Varied opportunities for engagement, oustide course boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White & Le Cornu, 2011)

6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this. Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors (White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave, Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice. Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small groups

6.1.3 Learners as communitySocial engagement esp for immersive collab important, sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech, confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron commimportant for relationship building (video link).

6.2.3 Course as communityEspecially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl. Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)

Chapter 7

• Lit review showed new frameworks are needed. No framework around collab open learning in cross-institutional ac dev was found

• Reviewed frameworks: commonalities> facilitator support, community, activities, choice

• My framework– Dynamic design tool– Basis for further research activity– Further exploration of collab open learning

Dimensions: learner engagement patterns, learner needs, design characteristics

Useful for: • Academic dev: new type of CPD• Ac staff: opportunity to be learners in new type of CPD before adopting• Students: learn with staff in partnership• Public: uni in the community, social good, learning opportunities extended, richer• Researchers future research in this area linked to dimensions

CC BY NC SA non commercial adaptations allowed

Chapter 8• Summary of study

collab open learning, call for more openness and cross-institut collab, formal/informal blurring > an alternative to TEF to raise quality teaching?, we need more outwards facing (Crawford), tech-supp, acad as learners> collab PgCert in Scotland early idea in 1989, then London joined course example but too risky?

• Contribution

– insights into collab open learning, selective/immersive pattern, online/offline, community, belonging, synch video link strengthened relationships/commitment

– Cross-boundary dimension important, facilitation, flexible design, collab as a choice, formal/informal, inquiry approach, community new way of CPD

– Framework: first of this kind. Brings experience and design together to help others design and implement

• Implications

– Academic dev > to review provison, consider outwards facing, cross-institutional, cross-boundary provision

– Academics > more CPD opportunities, networking, experiencing as learners, apply to own practice

– Researchers > framework useful or further studies, linked to specific dimensions of it

• Limitations/reflections

– Most participants in groups.

– Sole researcher, discussion with others useful in phenom research. Gerlese Akerlind says it is ok though for PhD study. I shared findings with participants

– Development as a phenom. interviewer, over prepared, progressively more organic, pilot also helped.

• Directions of study

– Testing framework

– Case study free data collection

– Facilitator experience

Resources used

• Murray, R. (2003)How to survive your viva, Maidenhead, Phil: Open University Press

• 13 steps I took to prepare for my viva http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/phd-viva-preparation-steps

• Top 40 potential viva questions http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156

• Top 10 questions for the oral PhD viva https://medium.com/advice-and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/top-ten-questions-for-the-phd-oral-exam-c3687cc75962

• SWOTting up http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/• Loughborough PhD Social and Support Network http://www.lboro-

phd-network.org.uk/links/the-viva/

http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/phd-viva-preparation-steps

http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156

https://medium.com/advice-and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/top-ten-questions-for-the-phd-oral-exam-c3687cc75962

http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/

http://www.lboro-phd-network.org.uk/links/the-viva/

To take with me into the viva




Pool 1 Course



description





Ph

eno

men

ogr

aphy

(Mar

ton

, 19

81

)Case study 1

FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)


+Surveys findings



RQ1 and RQ2Disc.

Open-ness in

HE


Learning with

others in groups


Literature


p.105









Stru

ctu

ral f

acto

rs (

Are

a A

)Li

ved

exp

erie

nce

(A

rea

B)



Immersive


Group focus




p.201







Learner needs















p.237 framework developed

Pool of Meanings


the outcome



C1.1


C1.2


C1.3


C1.4




C2.1



C2.2





C2.4



C3.1




C3.3

p.162



6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public) Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015), unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries, informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language, overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)

6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker. Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work, increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller (2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.

6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)Varied opportunities for engagement, outside course boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White & Le Cornu, 2011)

6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this. Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors (White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave, Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice. Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small groups

6.1.3 Learners as communitySocial engagement esp for immersive collab important, sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech, confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron commimportant for relationship building (video link).

6.2.3 Course as communityEspecially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl. Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)


Open education




Cross-boundary

Collaborative open

learning


(Dillenbourg, 1999)


(Lane, 2009)



(Crawford, 2009)





importance)








1995)






What developments have there been in the field since you began your PhD?• Sustainability of open ed discussed more, also at OE Global Cape Town 2017 (not in thesis, my

focus was on experience) Extensive funding a few years ago, but what is happening with projects after funding stops?

• More open ed research since 2010, still very new discipline (Weller et al. 2017) more advocacy research, holistic research missing

• The need to democratise of open education, Global North + Global South – still a gap, imperialistic approach

• Resources > Practices > Communities ALSO open textbooks• MOOCs open > commercialisation > closed > professional training• Open > boundary crossing (Connected Curriculum work by (Dilly Fung, 2017 OER mentioned once,

no mention of open education at all, focus on inquiry-based learning); Porous University (Ronald Macintyre, 2017)

• 2016 new book around Ac Development (Baume and Popovic) Models of ac development (Popovic and Plank (2017) chapter> ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-based’ NOT about open, not about external or cross-institutional, focus still on the institution

• More discussion about open pedagogy especially 2017 (David Wiley, Martin Weller, 2017) but still ill defined usually on the use of OER, theory and practice not brought together

• Mainstreaming OER mainly but also open education• Discussion around digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu) continues, new article August

2017 focus on mapping activity and how this is helping practitioners to discuss and review their digital practices

Literature review (gaps, opportunities)Collaborative learning (2.2)

- More emphasis on the process: collaborative learning as a process“collaboration as learning” (Nerantzi & Gossman, 2015) based on Dillenbourgh (1999) “learning from collaboration”- Group learning in HE mainly around group conversations (Jaques & Salmon, 2007)

Open learning (2.3)

- Needed: Scaffolding for wider participation (McAuleyet al., 2010)

- Needed: Pedagogical models for inclusive learning (Lane, 2009; Milligan, Littlejohn, Margaryan, 2013; Conole, 2013b; Bayne and Ross, 2014; Sharples et. al.2014; MIT News, 2015)

- Opportunities and benefits: Cross-institutional collaboration (Smyth et al., 2013)

- Opportunities and benefits: Cross-boundary (Hall and Smyth, 2016)

Technology-supported learning (2.4)

- Learning from existing frameworks used outside open education (tutor support, community, activities and choice)

- Frameworks for open settings: 7C (Conole, 2013a, 5-steps (Salmon, 2013), 5C (Nerantzi & Beckingham, 2015a) which are activity based and have a focus on the individual?

- There is no framework specifically for collaborative open learning, EC opening-up framework, talks about collaboration among institutions/practitioners and collaborative learning BUT no details about how (Inamorato de Santos, 2016).

Academic development in the UK (2.5)

- The need to drive innovation in learning and teaching (Beetham, 2015), creative models and frameworks (Gordon, 2014)

- Recognising opportunities for cross-institutional collaboration (Crawford, 2009; Cochrane et al. 2014)

- Decenralised provision creates shared ownership (Gunn, 2011)

- What works: Building community (Beetham, 2015)- Call for more inquiry-based (Johnson et al., 2016)- Opportunities to harness technologies (Conole,

2013a) and open and connected practices (Redeckeret al., 2011)

(p. 4)

New Media Consortium report for HE 2017

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

Visuals in thesis and where they are

• Research design > 105• Collective case study (FDOL132, #creativeHE) overview > 123

• Categories of description with variations > 162• Outcome space > 201• My phenomenographic data analysis process > 160

• Design frameworks review > 71 AND Appendix 1.2 detailed > 314• Opening-up framework EU > 49• My Framework > 237• Comments on my framework (11 people) > 251, 418

• Timeline open ed and dig tech > 65• Timeline HE and ac dev > 84

Used and useful during the viva









Stru

ctu

ral f

acto

rs (

Are

a A

)Li

ved

exp

erie

nce

(A

rea

B)



Immersive


Group focus




p.201







Learner needs















p.237 framework developed

Pool of Meanings


the outcome



C1.1


C1.2


C1.3


C1.4




C2.1



C2.2





C2.4



C3.1




C3.3

p.162


Open education




Cross-boundary

Collaborative open

learning


(Dillenbourg, 1999)


(Lane, 2009)



(Crawford, 2009)





importance)








1995)






Questions I was asked…

What I was asked… (not exact words)1. Why this topic?

2. What lead you to conceptual journey in the literature? How did you choose these areas?

3. Social constructivism is in the discussion, where does it sit in the literature?

4. Karen Crawford’s work has a focus on disciplinary communities.

5. Was there a gap in the literature? Where does your work sit?

6. Who is the audience?

7. Did you use another researcher to do the analysis?

8. How did you feel you have learnt to be a phenomenographer?

9. The courses where innovative etc. What about the study participants?

10. Did you consider other approaches before settling on phenomenography?

11. Tell us a bit more about the Pools of meaning.

12. How did you arrive at the outcome space? What are the relationships between structural factors and the lived experience? Is the lived experience referential?

13. How do you account for affective elements in your outcomes?

14. Why did you choose to present your work as a collective case study? What alternatives did you consider? Why did you reject?

15. Immersive and selective collaborators are these orientations? Patterns?

16. Why is the framework so important? What will people take away from it? Talk us through it. Are you pleased with it?

17. How does the work around child welfare and animal slaughter link to your work?

18. Have you checked the framework out with the community?

19. What about boundary crossing? Did it prompt you to look at different concepts?

20. Animal slaughter study, child welfare study. Why did you include these in the literature review?

21. Question reg language and words being used commonly but with different meanings?

22. Academic development to an outside, what is that all about?

23. Is selective and immersive collaboration particular to online only?

24. There are some suggestions in the thesis but what is next for you?

25. Have you published? What are you planning to publish?

26. How will you disseminate further?

27. Is there anything you would like to add/ask us?

A blog post written shortly after the viva

https://chrissinerantzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/i-have-survived-big-friday-go_gn/

https://chrissinerantzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/i-have-survived-big-friday-go_gn/

Colleagues who helped me with my viva preparation.

A big thank you to all.

Dr Stephen Powell, Mary Ikoniadou, Dr Naveed Yasin, Dr Jenny Fisher, Prof Ale Armellini Dr Jenny Mackness, Dr Peter Gossman, Kath Botham, Penny Bentley, my #GO-GN family, Dr Chris Jobling, Dr Neil Carey, Catherine Cronin, Lisa Taner, Dr Sandra Cairncross, Frances Bell, Neil Carey, Adam Frank, Prof. Keith Smyth

Towards a cross-boundary collaborative open learning

framework for cross-institutional academic development

Viva preparation resources

Chrissi Nerantzi

2017