OERu/Planning/Brainstorm page for open pedagogy
Although the pedagogial challenges known in open, flexible and distance learning will be increased in OERu, our mission is to ensure quality from the start. This includes the courses and programmes that open when the OERu opens and also innovative and sustainable approaches to student selection and needs analysis as well as summative assessment.
Pedagogial frameworks that will assist us in design include TPACK - Technical Pedagogical And Content Knowledge:
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), builds on Shulman’s idea of PCK, and attempts to capture some of the essential qualities of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge. At the heart of the TPACK framework, is the complex interplay of three primary forms of knowledge: Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK). (see http://punya.educ.msu.edu/research/tpck/)
We should also be aware that this is a co-evolutionary process so that change theories such as those reviewed by Niki Davis and her students may be valuable to inform professional and organisational development that enables appropriate pedagogies, see http://wikieducator.org/Davis(2011)
FOR DISCUSSION: I have been working on this for a while - I think there is a window to define a more "open" Open Pedagogy - I would love to flesh this out to something more formal - but focusing on the Brainstorm element of this page - here are some thoughts on what I believe Open Pedagogy could be:
Open Pedagogy As Instructional Designers and Administrators are turning to Open Course Ware (OCW) and Open Educational Resources (OER) for both fiscal and quality reasons, there is a developing need to review pedagogy in light of the use of these materials and the opportunity they present. It is our belief that only an Open Pedagogy model will best leverage these resources and provide most opportunity to students and instructors.
The basic tenets of Open Pedagogy are:
• OCW / OER are used
• The course has a delineated area for the enrolled class providing the forum for student support and grading but it should support open, collaborative learning by allowing un-enrolled students to participate and encouraging “drive-by-assignments”
• In addition to the school’s prescribed (in-the-syllabus) Learning Outcomes, Students must have input in their learning outcomes – what are they? / what will they need to learn for this course to be a success?
• Besides academic learning outcomes, institutions will factor in real world needed skills and outcomes – at undergrad level this would extend to General Education outcomes but should also include needed skills as prescribed by the Institute of the Future (see appendices)
• Students will have serious input into the format of their deliverables – e-Portfolio, blog, YouTube channel, posted through social media (with the caveat of the next bullet)
• Learning experiences are authentic (real world) and experiential, and integrated with reflective learning in preparation for reflective practice once they are professionals.
• Students are supported to develop their capacity for self-directed learning (dispositions and strategies, e.g. goals, monitoring learning), digital information literacy and open learning (attitudes, collaboration and sharing etc.).
• Learners, through using social networked media are expected to become members of the participatory Internet, and join communities of learning. Therefore, using the Internet, not just as a repository of information, but as a vehicle for interaction and collaboration and as a space for generating and sharing content (based on Conole & Alevizou, 2010; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008)
• Teachers/facilitators supported to use open education practices, mentoring, and have high level and current digital information skills and capability.
• Uses Knowledge maps and other visual representations of the knowledge field to help students understand what they need to learn.
• Competencies are melded in the course development – Learning Outcomes for the course, General Education tenets, Real-world/life long learning skills – as outlined by the Institute of the Future
• Assessment will be embedded in course activities, students will demonstrate competence through their study not independently of it (traditional assessment) and will be assessed by an independent grader
• All deliverables must be Open and submitted under a CC license.
The rationale: Many of the newer models for teaching and learning require a greater degree of self-sufficiency and are competency-based. We believe that there are pressures compelling higher education to make sure that outcomes are relevant and not merely theoretical. As downward pressure on pricing places pressure on institutions to consider alternatives to traditional textbooks and courses with texts central to the course, we realize that there are many, rich resources that speak to different learning styles that can actually raise the quality of the learning experience. With organizations like Saylor, Lumina and Open Course Library making these resources accessible and attesting to their quality, it seems to us that it will limit the student experience to demarcate only one or two resources when many would benefit from utilizing other resources. By allowing the students this flexibility, we will encourage self-determined, truly student-centric learning and students will be able to self-select as many or as few resources as they need to meet the learning outcomes of the course.
Embedded assessment will hopefully stimulate autotelic study: a student in the FLOW delivering work that is relevant, stimulating and creative – a.k.a. the DEATH of busy work.
Will require flexibility of grading - perhaps dedicated graders who do nothing but that... (as with Western Governors University's model in the U.S.)
- Kevin Bell Dec 6th
- Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). Review of the use(s) of Web 2.0 in higher education. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/1895
- McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2008). Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate 4 (5). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/