Discussion - Facet 3.1
Connectedness in community
Lucier et al., (2012) describe 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, NK’s feelings of being a novice in creating and sharing coding activities for/with their TCs and AT’s feelings of confidence while connecting with collaborators for the teaching of video production. For CS, 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” (CS). BC, ER, FJ, and RB mention how they encourage students to shift beyond lurking by reaching out to connect to researchers in their fields of endeavour as a novice or insider. For CS and RB, their participation in the GO-GN network establishes stronger degrees of connectedness within the field of open education research, while BC, LL, LV, and NK 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 comments made by CS and RB from their lived experiences in the GO-GN COP.
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 (add pop-up box describing this term) by providing flexible and fluid structures to engage through the 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). While participants in this research describe involvements in some form of COP and connected networks relating to teaching and learning, those involved in GO-GN (CS and RB) and OTESSA (BC, CS, DW, LV, RB, and UF) specifically focus efforts on enhancing and designing their OEPr while applying 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 BC 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; Couros & Hildebrandt 2016; Mirra, 2019; Nascimbeni et al, 2018; Roberts et al., 2022).