Making a case for the opening of resources and practices raises the question of what exactly openness means. Whereas the openness of OER is generally agreed to derive primarily from the application of open licenses to resources, the form of openness implied by the use of the term OEP is more multifaceted and therefore elusive. OEP are consequently more challenging to precisely define. While often closely associated with OER, OEP is also used to refer to forms of collaborative, connected, and networked practices that are not necessarily resource-based (Cronin, 2017; Havemann, 2016; Masterman, 2016; Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016).
While there are persuasive arguments for the adoption of OEP by teaching staff, it seems their enthusiasm may be dampened by perceptions (not necessarily inaccurate) that this would require new skillsets, create additional labour, or lack recognition and reward (Atenas et al., 2014). Yet, it also remains the case that there are educators who share their work and show their processes, who engage with networked communities, and who involve students in the development of open resources in assessment tasks. These activities can be characterised as open, but are open in a variety of ways.
For the purposes of this workshop, the term OEP is understood inclusively, as working with open content and/or ‘in the open’. The workshop will take the form of a group-based mapping exercise, asking participants to locate forms of educational activity on an openness continuum, across multiple dimensions. This exercise will act as a provocation for a whole-group discussion exploring whether practices can be truly closed or open, and what is therefore achievable through claiming practices for openness.
Breakdown of workshop timing:
1 Presentation (introduction, literature review, explanation of task) – 15 min
2 In groups:
Mapping exercise – 10 min
Group discussions – 5 min
3 Whole group:
Feedback from each group – 5 min
Whole group closing discussion – 5 min
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U.-D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G., Kairamo, A.-K., . . . Holmberg, C.(2011). Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open educational practices: OPAL Report 2011. Retrieved from http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-25907/OPALReport2011_Beyond_OER.pdf
Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Priego, E. (2014). Opening teaching landscapes: The importance of quality assurance in the delivery of open educational resources. Open Praxis, 6(1), 29-43. Retrieved from http://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/81
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved from https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/handle/10379/6394
Havemann, L. (2016) Open educational resources. In: Peters, M.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/17820/
Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing open educational practice to a research-intensive university: Prospects and challenges. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1), 31-42. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=483
Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2016). In search for the open educator: Proposal of a definition and a framework to increase openness adoption among university educators. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,17(6). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.19173/IRRODL.V17I6.2736