GO-GN Research Review Summer 2020

Research Review Summer 2020
Dr. Robert Farrow
Open Education Research Hub
Institute of Educational Technology
The Open University, UK
rob.farrow@open.ac.uk
@philosopher1978

2
SUPPORTING DOCTORAL RESEARCH IN OPEN EDUCATION
GLOBAL OER GRADUATE NETWORK
http://go-gn.net/

3
SUPPORTING DOCTORAL RESEARCH IN OPEN EDUCATION
GLOBAL OER GRADUATE NEWORK
GO-GN started in 2013 as an initiative from Fred Mulder, UNESCO Chair in OER at the Dutch Open
Universiteit, in collaboration with Rory McGreal, UNESCO / COL Chair in OER at Athabasca University
(Canada).
GO-GN is currently funded through the OER programme of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and
administered by the Open Education Research Hub from the Institute of Educational Technology at The Open
University, UK.
The aims of the GO-GN are:
• to raise the profile of research into open education,
• to offer support for those conducting PhD research in
this area, and
• to develop openness as a process of research.
More than 100 doctoral and post-doctoral researchers
form the core of the network with more than 200 experts,
supervisors, mentors and interested parties forming a
community of practice

4
Farrow, R. (ed.) et al. (2020). GO-GN
Research Review (Summer 2020). Global
OER Graduate Network.
http://go-gn.net/gogn_outputs/research-
review-summer-2020/

5
Farrow, R., Iniesto, F., Weller, M. &
Pitt., R. (2020). The GO-GN Research
Methods Handbook. Open Education
Education Research Hub. The Open
University, UK. CC-BY 4.0.
http://go-
gn.net/gogn_outputs/research-
methods-handbook/
Images by Visual Thinkery
CC BY

6
Farrow, R. & Mathers, B. (2020). Conceptualising
Research Methodology for Doctoral Researchers
in Open Education (with penguins)
in
Buckley, C. and Nerantzi, C. (eds.) ‘Exploring
visual representation of concepts in Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education’. Special issue
of International Journal of Management and
Applied Research, http://ijmar.org/v7n3/20-

8
RATIONALE
GO-GN RESEACH REVIEW SUMMER 2020
• Part of wider research programme in this phase of GO-GN which includes
Research Methods Handbook and other planned publications
• Opportunities for network members to publish during their doctoral studies
and practice academic publication
• Collectively engaging with recent research
• A platform for sharing diverse perspectives
• Critical but constructive
• Open research as emergent field
• Building an artefact series that draws on member expertise for the benefit
of all
• Published every 6 months until at least 2022
• Reviews are voluntary – but encouraged!

9
PROCESS
• Initial set of considered materials was
produced using bibliographic searches for
keywords like OER, open pedagogy, open
educational practices, etc.
• This collection of references was shared
with members who expressed an interest
in reviewing.
• Reviews were aligned with reviewer
expertise and interest
• Reviews of 500 words were written in
June-July 2020
• Open Review Process (Google Doc)

10
GUIDANCE FOR REVIEWERS
Guidance was not prescriptive. Reviewers were encouraged to focus on the relevance of the paper for
educational technologists, instructional designers, and educators working in higher education institutions with a
particular focus on research into open education.
• A concise summary of what the paper is about
• What is the research claim advanced by the paper?
• Are the methods used robust and appropriate?
• Does the data presented fully support the conclusions drawn?
• Is the argument clearly articulated?
• Is it written well and accessible?
• Is all the relevant research included?
• What is the relevance/importance for open education research?
• What might be thought interesting about its contribution?

11
ACCESSIBILITY
Reviewer: Paco Iniesto

12
ACCESSIBILITY
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A. & Williams, S. A. (2020). Open to Inclusion: Exploring
Openness for People with Disabilities. In Conrad, D. & Prinsloo, P. (eds.) Open(ing) Education: Theory
and Practice. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004422988_008
• Presents a Global South perspective on the accessibility of OER
• Uses fictional personas to explore obstacles to OER use
• Suggests that provision of OER may not benefit disabled learners, who are often supported
• Raises awareness of misalignment between rhetoric and reality of open

13
ACCESSIBILITY
Rets, I., Coughlan, T., Stickler, U. & Astruc, L. (2020). Accessibility of Open Educational Resources:
how well are they suited for English learners? Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance
Learning. http://oro.open.ac.uk/70272/
• Highlights the prevalence of OERs in (linguistically complex) English
• More than 86% of courses surveyed (OpenLearn & Saylor) required advanced English proficiency
• No standard metrics for readability
• Hard to see how to encourage authors to write differently
• This area is under-researched

14
ACCESSIBILITY
Zhang, X., Tlili, A., Nascimbeni, F. et al. (2020). Accessibility within open educational resources and
practices for disabled learners: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments 7, 1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0113-2
• Presents the results of a literature review pertaining to accessibility of OER
• 31 papers selected from a pool of 1617
• Demonstrates a lack of disabilities specification in accessibility research
• Paper concludes that researchers should focus on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) –
though these are not pedagogical in nature – andusing OER with assistive technologies
• Raises important themes: building capacity; developing authoring tools; use of learning analytics;
raising awareness – but sample size is limited

ADOPTION STUDIES
Reviewers: Marjon Bass, Glenda Cox

16
ADOPTION STUDIES
Bethel, E. (2020). Open Textbooks: Quality and Relevance for Postsecondary Study in The
Bahamas. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(2), 61-80.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i2.4598
• Suggests a method for appraising open textbook quality based on pedagogy, openness,
accessibility, and relevance
• 41 textbooks from Openstax CNX and BCcampus OpenEd repositories were tested
• Most scored highly for clear learning objectives, diagrams and graphs, activities and practice
exercises
• Makes recommendations for future advocacy work including awareness raising, faculty capacity
building and exploring current faculty textbook use
• Tool continues to be developed

17
ADOPTION STUDIES
McGowan, V. (2020). Institution initiatives and support related to faculty development of open
educational resources and alternative textbooks. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance
and e-Learning, 35:1, 24-45, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1562328
• Analysis of 37 websites of higher education institutions in the USA
• Thematic/factor analysis
• Student savings still important, but need studies with more data about costs of production
• Quality, accessibility generally not prioritised
• Main contribution of the paper is description of how institutional grants for OER operate
• 51% of OER grants required some preparation in OER/copyright
• Grants handled in different ways by different institutions

18
ADOPTION STUDIES
Rabin, E., Kalman, Y. M. & Kalz, M. (2020) The cathedral’s ivory tower and the open education
bazaar – catalyzing innovation in the higher education sector. Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance and e-Learning, 35:1, 82-99, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2019.1662285
10.1080/02680513.2019.1662285
• Considers whether open education is an augmentation or replacement for traditional education
• Analysis based on cathedral and the bazaar (Raymond, 1999)
• Used as inspiration for classifying different educational business models – but also argue that
this is a continuum
• Conceptually rich paper that may require slow reading in places

19
ADOPTION STUDIES
Tang, H., Lin, Y.-J. and Qian, Y. (2020). Understanding K-12 teachers’ intention to adopt open
educational resources: A mixed methods inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12937
• Mixed methods study exploring teacher intention to adopt OER in a K12 context
• Under-researcher compared with higher education
• Study uses statistical modelling though the sample is modest (N=68)
• Qualitative elements may be more insightful
• Paper offers theoretical and practical insights relevant to K12 settings

OPEN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES
Reviewers: Robert Farrow, Beck Pitt, Hélène Pulker

21
Adam, T. (accepted). Open educational practices of MOOC designers: embodiment and epistemic
location. Distance Education, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757405
• Intersectional approach draws on theories from feminism, decolonisation and critical pedagogy
• Phenomenological interviews with South African MOOC designers (N=27)
• Thematic analysis identifies four categories of experience with concomitant understandings of
openness
• personal background (broadening the target audience; respecting cultural practices;
overcoming stereotypes; acknowledging one’s positionality);
• academic background;
• life experiences (disability; privilege);
• ideological and political influences.
• Call to include marginalised voices and plurality of knowledges
• No control/comparison group

22
Czerwonogora, A., & Rodés, V. (2019). PRAXIS: Open Educational Practices and Open Science
to face the challenges of critical Educational Action Research. Open Praxis, 11(4), 381-396.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1024
• Educational Action Research explores benefits of open science and OEP in academic
professional development communities
• Social Network Analysis (SNA) of written exchanges from the 30 participants in 127 reflective
writing-blog posts including 248 peer comments during a three months teacher training course
• Detail of innovations well described but less to situate results within teacher education or
professional development
• Novel framework that HEIs could use and adapt

23
Lee, Kyungmee (2020). Who opens online distance education, to whom, and for what?:A critical
literature review on open educational practices. Distance Education.
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/143340
• Critical literature review exploring open educational practices in online higher education
• 29 scholarly narratives analysed, emergent concepts extracted:
• Open education driven by individual effort
• Technology driven
• Driven by higher education institutions (traditional, distance, etc.)
• Blurred distinction between formal/informal learning
• Lack of clarity about what open educational practices are
• 29 papers is a limited sample, and some important aspects of the narrative seem to be missing

24
Wolfenden, F., Adinolfi, L., & Cross, S. (2020). Exploring Open Digital Badges in Teacher
Education: a Case Study from India. Journal of Learning for Development, 7(1), 108-115.
https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/383
• Global South research into open digital badging
• Detailed account of perceptions, discussion and activity based on TESS-India workshops
• Four reflective outcomes
• Classroom as a site of professional learning
• Educator responsibility for learning pathways (less didactic)
• Tendency to isolate learning strategies from pedagogic practice – badging can
encourage reflection/innovation
• Classroom assessments could be updated/innovated to include recordings as evidence
but badges might not be able to share this evidence for privacy/safeguarding reasons

OPEN PEDAGOGY
Reviewers: Michael Dabrowski, Helen DeWaard, Caroline Kuhn

26
OPEN PEDAGOGY
Baran, E., & AlZoubi, D. (in press). Affordances, Challenges, and Impact of Open Pedagogy:
Examining Students’ Voices. Distance Education. 10.1080/01587919.2020.1757409
• Explores open pedagogy through a qualitative case study with 13 students from 3 HEIs in the
USA
• Affordances and challenges organised around themes of content curation, peer feedback,
community engagement, development, reflection, and scaffolding
• These are used to propose a model for “open pedagogy in action” though the process of
generating this model from the data may be unclear

27
OPEN PEDAGOGY
Katz, Stacy and Van Allen, Jennifer (2020). Evolving Into the Open: A Framework for Collaborative
Design of Renewable Assignments. CUNY Academic Works.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/le_pubs/306
• Offers an account of transitioning from disposable to renewable assignments
• Attempts to formalise open educational practices
• Framework may be useful for institutional co-operation around OER development
• Grounded in established literature regarding disposable assignments and OER (Wiley, Hilton)

28
OPEN PEDAGOGY
Tur, G., Havemann, L., Marsh, D., Keefer, J. M., & Nascimbeni, F. (2020). Becoming an open
educator: towards an open threshold framework. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2338
• Connects threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2006) with research into open educator identity
(Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016)
• Develops discourse around open education identity
• Need to redraw conceptual maps
• Challenge to established ideas & habit
• Further study of open educator identity needed – and supported by this paper

29
OPEN PEDAGOGY
Zapata, G. C. (2020). Sprinting to the Finish Line: The Benefits and Challenges of Book Sprints in
OER Faculty-Graduate Student Collaborations. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 21(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i2.4607

OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Reviewers: Caroline Kuhn, Kathy Essmiller

31
Joseph, K., Guy, J., & McNally, M. (2019). Toward a Critical Approach for OER: A Case Study in
Removing the ‘Big Five’ from OER Creation. Open Praxis, 11(4), 355-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1020
• Case study (N=1) exploring power imbalances in OER production
• Creating OER without using the technologies of the ‘Big Five’ – the costs outweigh the benefits
• Open source software can be less usable, sustainable
• Pragmatic arguments exist for the ongoing use of proprietary software but practitioners should
remain alert to how their use exacerbates unequal power relations

32
Stracke, C., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D., & Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs Open
Educational Resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and
MOOCs. Open Praxis, 11(4), 331-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1010
• Analysis of definitions and typologies relating to OER and MOOC
• Uses the OpenEd Quality Framework as theoretical underpinning
• Two perspectives: resources vs learning innovations
• MOOCs can be considered a category of OER as resources;
• As an innovation they transcend the category of resources
• To some extent definitions are therefore perspectival
• Provides a history of OER/MOOC that will be useful design, instruction and/or evaluation

33
Tlili, A., Jemni, M., Khribi, M.K. et al. (2020). Current state of open educational resources in the
Arab region: an investigation in 22 countries. Smart Learning Environments, 7, 11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00120-z
• Results from a survey (N=735) into OER use in the Arab region
• Progress is uneven: adoption “in its infancy”
• High level of awareness of role of OER in improving learning
• Perceived difficulty of creation/use of OER acts as a barrier
• Perception of government support for OER but lack of vision/strategy
• Increased use of OER could address social justice issues and improve learning outcomes

OPEN ECOSYSTEMS
Reviewers: Robert Farrow, Beck Pitt, Martin Weller

35
OPEN ECOSYSTEMS
Rajagopal, K., Firssova, O., Op de Beeck, I., Van der Stappen, E., Stoyanov, S., Henderikx, P., &
Buchem, I. (2020). Learner skills in open virtual mobility. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2254
• Combines concepts of Virtual Mobility (VM) and Open Education (OE) into Open Virtual
Mobility through group concept mapping (N=28)
• Concept may be useful in framing OER and OEP to international audiences
• Generic skills and competencies:
• Digitalisation
• Collaboration
• Openness
• Group concept mapping is an innovative technique which could be applied in other areas
(especially in the context of an online pivot)

36
OPEN ECOSYSTEMS
Urbančič, T., Polajnar, A., & Jermol, M. (2019). Open Education for a Better World: A Mentoring
Programme Fostering Design and Reuse of Open Educational Resources for Sustainable
Development Goals. Open Praxis, 11(4), 409-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1026
• A presentation of the Open Education for a Better World (OE4BW) programme which offers a
mentorship programme for those working in OER which is structured around the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals
• Survey work revealed use and development of OER is siloed in many countries; capacity
building often overlooked
• Describes steps taken to ensure diversity and focus in mentoring programme
• Describes how year 1 evolution influences year 2 operation
• Findings are of interest to anyone interested in sustainable development goals; low-cost
mentoring and social impact of OER

37
OPEN ECOSYSTEMS
Wong, T., Xie, H., Zou, D. et al. (2020). How to facilitate self-regulated learning? A case study on
open educational resources. Journal of Computers in Education 7, 51–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00138-4
• Study using 3 (mostly Likert) surveys (N = 149, N = 168, N = 150) to investigate self-regulated
learning in terms of learning motivation; planning and management; and self-monitoring
• Based in use of i-Classroom VLE which provides elementary school learners with access to
OER (primarily video content) along with assessments
• High support level compared with most informal learning – although the study is framed as
being about non-formal learning
• Results are interpreted through Connectivism – OER effects are incidental
• Authors hypothesize that the that the pressure applied - even to young learners - by the Hong
Kong schooling system may in fact inhibit learning through increased anxiety and
procrastination

39
IDEAS FOR FUTURE ISSUES
• JIME 2020(1) open education & social justice issue (ed. Lambert & Czerniewicz)
https://jime.open.ac.uk/collections/special/open-education-and-social-justice/
• Asian Journal of Distance Education 15(1) (selection focused on open)
http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/issue/view/32
• Distance Education 41(2) ‘Critical questions for open educational practices’ (ed. Koseoglu,
Bozkurt & Havemann)
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cdie20/41/2
• Conrad & Prinsloo (ed.) (2020). Open(ing) Education Theory and Practice. Brill.
https://brill.com/view/title/56897

41
• Marjon Baas (Leiden University, Netherlands)
• Natasha Chtena (University of California Los
Angeles, USA)
• Glenda Cox (University of Cape Town, South
Africa)
• Michael Dabrowski (Athabasca University,
Canada)
• Helen De Waard (Lakehead University,
Canada)
• Kathy Essmiller (Oklahoma State University,
USA)
• Paco Iniesto (Open University, UK)
• Caroline Kuhn (Bath Spa University, UK)
• Rebecca Pitt (Open University, UK)
• Hélène Pulker (Open University, UK)
• Martin Weller (Open University, UK)

42
Look out for the call to
participate in the Winter
2020 edition!

THANK YOU
rob.farrow@open.ac.uk
@philosopher1978
go-gn.net
oerhub.net

44
IMAGE ATTRIBUTION
• Accessibility by mikicon from the Noun Project
• pet adoption by Dan Hetteix from the Noun Project
• synergy with hands by Bruno Castro from the Noun Project
• presentation by WITDHAWAT THANAKORNNONTHAWIT from the Noun Project
• ecosystem by Sharon Showalter from the Noun Project
• Penguins of various denominations by Bryan Mathers @ Visual Thinkery CC BY

GO-GN Research Review Summer 2020

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a GO-GN Research Review Summer 2020

Semelhante a GO-GN Research Review Summer 2020 (20)

Mais de Robert Farrow

Mais de Robert Farrow (18)

Último

Último (20)

GO-GN Research Review Summer 2020