Contributions to OEPr
Contribution to the study of MDL in OEPr
This research adds to global conversations and the growing body of scholarship in the study of open education practices (OEPr) by focusing on facets of understanding about MDL as revealed through the lived experiences of TEds (see Figure 22). This research contends that MDL within an OEPr is not contingent on the use or application of OER, as mentioned in research (Cronin, 2018; O’Neill, 2021; Paskevicius, 2018) but on mediations and negotiations within educative communication, creativity, connections, and criticality, as revealed in stories of the participating TEds’ teaching practices. From within these contested, situated, and contextual spaces, this dissertation research contributes to the growing awareness of how an open mindset in teacher education is not solely focused on overcoming ‘know-how’ in order to resolve technical obstacles, but in resolving to view teaching practices differently to support how learning can be achieved (Couros, 2006). The participants in this research continually negotiate and make critical decisions when dialing-it-up or dialing down (see Figure 8) their open educational practices, with awareness of media or digital engagements, as they design and work with students in their learning contexts. Similar to the findings of Paskevicius (2018), this research contributes insights into how the TEds who participated in this research infuse MDL into their OEPr while inviting learners to communicate, connect, create, and critically analyze process, products, and presentations within their learning practices. The participants come from diverse backgrounds in teaching and teacher education, with many holding years of experience as K-12 educators. These lived experiences with MDL are grounded in pedagogical and cognitive practices within the field of education in higher education contexts, but with deeply held connections to K-12 education. The collective expertise of the participants is not directly or explicitly tied to any field of study relating to media studies, media education, digital technologies, or open education.The MDL within the participants’ OEPr support the findings of (Cronin, 2017), Paskevicius (2018), and Oddone (2019). Cronin (2017) identifies four elements of open educational practices including balancing privacy and openness, developing digital literacies, valuing social learning, and challenging traditional teaching roles and expectations. Paskevicius’ (2018) research identifies three categories of openness, which can be seen as sites where MDL contributes to OEPr, in explorations of open resources, engagements with open design tools and techniques, and open publications that engage in reflection, peer-review and contributions to knowledge building. Similar to Paskevicius’ findings, I see the lived experiences of the participants’ MDL in their OEPr as varied, responsive, complex, and not tied to the use of OER as primary teaching materials. The participants model a mindset and orientation toward radical flexibility and imaginative use of tools, teaching strategies, and technologies (Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020). Since “academics need to start from their teaching practices in order to find ways in which they can share and collaborate openly” (Inamorato dos Santos, 2019, p. 108) this shift in mindset contributes to clarifications necessary for understandings of the complexity of teaching in the open.
An additional contribution to the field of open education is the explicit distinction I make in the use of the abbreviation / acronym for OEPr. This provides a delineation between the current multiple meanings behind OEP – being applied to both open educational pedagogies and open educational practices. By creating the distinct abbreviation and applying the acronym OEPr to the concept of open educational practices, this contribution within the field highlights the distinctive difference between pedagogy and practice in the field of teaching, and contributes to a clarity to conceptualizations.