Media and digital literacies in Canadian teacher educators’ open educational practices: A post-intentional phenomenology

Facet 2.1: Access

Access included lived experiences with entry into connecting with people and openly using materials and tools that support their work in teacher education. The conception of access being used here should not to be confused with the notion of accessibility which focuses on the access needs of differently-enabled populations. While accessibility is a consideration for OEPr, for reasons of brevity it is intentionally omitted here.

Entry

One participant suggested, from their lived experiences with entry for their OEPr, that it was important to consider using teaching resources that are “visible you know, not behind paywalls” (OW) and to avoid using technologies “that require students to sign up”(OW). For NK and RB, this meant that entry into learning opportunities are open to “people outside of your class, outside of that specific group would also have access and it's something that you would allow people to share”. For LV, their experiences with access to massive open online courses (MOOCs) highlighted the complications created when MOOCs are used as entry points into what they view as pedagogically flawed OEPr: 

Because you can have a MOOC that is open access, that you go through this didactic pedagogy. And yes, it’s open access … so, if you’re saying open is this wonderful, pedagogically rich, amazing student voice thing? And that’s open education? No, check out the MOOCs that are out there. They’re open education. They are NOT pedagogically beautiful and rich many of them. So, I think we’ve got a problem ... I’ve heard others say but it’s working, it’s going to hook people in higher ed to change their pedagogy with this open ed branding by broadening it. I just think that we’re creating more mess just because we want to market it (LV).

Frustrations with lived experiences in gaining entry and access were expressed by LL and OW specifically to materials and resources available to K-12 teachers in their province but not available to those in faculties of education working with teacher candidates in that same province. They questioned the public nature of publicly funded materials and resources that are kept closed to those who could make use of those teaching materials. Another participant stated that “SHRRC requires open access for research. I still don't understand why we are any different with courses?” (LV) and suggested that open access could be part of an institution’s public relations and accountability measure.

Intentionality

OEPr for SH was 

absolutely a process of becoming … because there certainly are parts of my professional life that aren’t open to others. So, I do make intentional choices. But my process of becoming an open educator, it’s … rooted in my own values around access.

While RG wondered if “students always know that I'm using, intentionally choosing a textbook or a chapter that's open source or readings”. This intentionality extended to open discussions with students:

 …about what technology I use in the course, because surveillance technology, like where's your data going? … it'll come up in the class, maybe some times where we'll start talking about, you know, just maybe using proctoring or plagiarism software … and I'm very clear about why I don't use it (RG).

Since FJ had lived experiences with creating and recording podcasts, intentionality shaped the decisions and processes of presenting information to an audience, be it students, colleagues, or outside the learning organization. FJ recognized that whichever “mode that you’re choosing is going to have certain possibilities for open access and limitations, for different people”. 

Language

Language, as an access issue, was not just about the word choices being used, as LV suggested in the statement “… semantics matter. Terms matter. Definitions matter!”. FJ mentioned how language influenced their OEPr, particularly when considering the access to teaching content for a specific audience:

I think about creating content and related to open access is one in terms of writing. What I try to explain to my students like, Look, if a grade 10 student and I can't understand the gist of what you're trying to explain, then you haven't clearly articulated. I don't care how complex the work you're doing, but I think it needs to be written in a language that's accessible.

Since Canada works in two official languages, bilingualism should be a consideration for OEPr, although this was noted by only three of the participants. Access for OEPr needs to be considered in the use of the preferred language of the intended audience. For FJ, NK, and SH their lived experience was in dual language learning and teaching, so bilingualism was a consideration in their OEPr for access and participation, for themselves and their students. As SH noted: 

there's an important role for those of us who are bilingual, French-English, I do feel increasingly like a profound responsibility to ensure that whatever it is, that I'm thinking about can also be accessed by my Francophone colleagues.

NK noted that the “meaning behind the language in which it is accessible or not, the ways in which that limits participation or learning opportunities” was important when creating and sharing open teaching materials and resources. For NK, this meant ensuring that openly accessed, bilingual French-English resources were representative of a high standard and reflective of their professional identity. FJ pondered about access and language by adding consideration for gender neutral language by “trying to become more aware of that, but also open access in terms of use of language in French like, so gender neutral language, for example, and how we present that when writing in French or even thinking about that in English.” So, I noticed that for some of the participants, language as an access issue was an important facet of their OEPr.
 

This page has paths: