This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-04T15:43:12+00:00 Glossary 19 alphabetic listing of glossary items with links to notes that describe each item plain 2023-06-28T15:29:30+00:00 Here is an alphabetic listing of the glossary items included in this dissertation document. Each item is linked to a note where the item is defined, described, and/or examples provided. These glossary items are also embedded throughout the document as notes within pages, where they provide 'just in time' clarification for you, the reader.
  • Actor Network Theory
  • Affinity Spaces
  • Alternative Dissertation
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Black Box technology
  • Block Chain
  • ChatGPT
  • Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
  • Creative Commons
  • Cynefin framework
  • Data Gathering
  • Digital Rights Management (DRM)
  • Educommunication
  • Emirec
  • Episteme / Phronesis
  • Faculty of Education (FoE)
  • #FemEdTech
  • Free and Open Software (FOSS)
  • Homo Faber
  • Hupomnemata
  • Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS)
  • Makerspace
  • Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
  • Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Open Educational Practices (OEPr)
  • Paywall
  • Platforms
  • PDF
  • Portable Graphics Network (PNG)
  • Post-Intentional Phenomenology (P-IP)
  • Practice - both noun and verb
  • Research Ethics Board (REB)
  • Safety, Security, Privacy, Permission (SSPP)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC)
  • Teacher Candidates (TCs)
  • Teacher Educators (TEds)
  • Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)
  • TPACK
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
  • UNESCO
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
  • Universal Serial Bus (USB)
  • Visitors / Residents
  
   
• 1 2023-04-24T16:29:47+00:00 Dimension 3.1 12 discussion of dimension 3.1: Connecting - connectedness in community plain 2023-10-02T15:35:34+00:00

  Connectedness in community

  Lucier et al., (2012) describes levels and degrees of connectedness that include lurker, novice, insider, colleague, collaborator, friend, and confidant. In the findings, there appears to be an acceptance of these degrees of connectedness in participants’ OEPr, particularly when the sharing of media productions impact their degree of connectedness to their current physical context. For example, Merak’s feelings of being a novice in creating and sharing coding activities for/with their TCs and Leonis’ feelings of confidence when connecting with collaborators for the teaching of video production. For Izar these degrees of connectedness include the connections to media and technologies through which people-centered connections occur, particularly those which encourage networks of openness by “taking aspects of closed communities and making those visible in some way” (Izar). Andromeda, Aquila, Lyra, and Vega mention how they encourage students to shift beyond lurking by reaching out to connect to researchers in their fields of study as a novice or insider. For Andromeda and Izar their participation in the GO-GN network establishes stronger degrees of connectedness with feelings of community being expressed in their lived experiences within the field of open education research. Carina, Lyra, Merak and Orion mention being connected as collaborators and confidants within professional networks such as CATE. Participants reveal how MDL productions influence and support their teaching and scholarly work through active and reciprocal PLN (Tour, 2017) in a “linking, stretching, or amplifying” manner (Oddone, 2019). The participants’ “playful, fluid and multimodal practices allowed making choices in terms of what digital spaces to use, what communities to join, and what resources to explore” (Tour, 2017, p. 15).
  
            Connections include communities of practice (COP) (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015) such as the GO-GN network which focuses on research in open education (About GO-GN, n.d.). Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) describe characteristics of COP that include problem solving, requests for information, seeking out experience, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, growing confidence, discussions of new developments, initiating new projects, identifying gaps, and visiting. These qualities are evident in the lived experiences of Andromeda and Izar as shared in their open MDL productions (blog posts).
  
            Differing from COP, networked teaching and learning through/with connections (Lohnes Watulak, 2018; Mirra, 2019; Mirra & Garcia, 2020) is reflective of Gee’s (2017) description of an affinity space since it provides flexible and fluid structures to engage with others through a computer screen. Affinity spaces, according to Gee (2017), include participants’ common interests where anyone can contribute, hold a distinction between individual and community knowledge, include flexible ways for interactions to involve external sources of ideas, holds tacit knowledge as commonly accepted, embraces varying forms of participation, where status is achieved through a variety of contributions, and roles include both helper and teacher (Gee, 2015). Although participants in this research describe involvements in some form of COP and connected networks relating to teaching and learning, those involved in GO-GN (Andromeda and Izar) and OTESSA (Andromeda, Izar, Lyra, Orion, and Rigel) specifically focus efforts on enhancing and designing their OEPr and apply MDL processes and productions to building connections and relationships through their computer screens (GO-GN website, n.d.).
  
            As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, COP and PLN activities occur predominantly through computer enabled media and digital communications. Connecting through the screen is fraught with power dynamics and concerns of accessibility, as Lyra describes in their lived experiences in one COP when requesting a transition from in-person to digitally enabled planning meetings. Participants describe approaches to their OEPr in course designs, course elements, and throughout the design process, to develop relationships, structure opportunities for connections, and build on the learning of others in humanizing ways that include sharing, reuse, and remix of materials and methods to communicate with students and peers, done through active and sometimes playful engagements in communities of practice and through networked learning (Bozkurt et al 2019; Brown et al., 2022; Couros & Hildebrandt 2016; Mirra, 2019; Nascimbeni et al, 2018; Roberts et al., 2022).
   
• 1 2022-11-13T22:28:15+00:00 FOSS - glossary item 5 defining and describing the term FOSS - free and open source software plain 2023-06-21T10:04:48+00:00 Free and open source software (FOSS) is also named FLOSS by adding libre into the acronym to recognize the libre (free) nature of the materials. (Wikipedia, n.d.)
  
  FOSS can include non-proprietary technologies and software that enable users to examine, work with, and engage in efforts to improve the software or technology to benefit end users.
  
  The underlying codes for the software are "open for all and anyone is free to use, study and modify the code" (web search results).
  
  FOSS are considered not fully free since there are often hidden and human costs for production.
  
  Examples include software such as Linux operating systems, Apache open office, Python coding software, the Moodle learning management system, or GIMP graphics editor.
  
  People who work with FOSS are organized within semi-structured and unstructured communities where the leadership roles are granted according to skills and abilities as much as length of time in the community. The community structures are reminiscent of affinity spaces as defined by Gee (2015/2017).
  
  Reference
  Free and open source software. (n.d.) [webpage]. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software