This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

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

FOSS - glossary item

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

This page is referenced by:

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
Dimension 4.2
Criticality in examining boundaries
Since “space without boundaries is not space, it is a chaotic void, and in such a place no learning is likely to occur” (Koseoglu, 2017), the research findings exemplify the lived experiences of the participants’ teaching and learning environments that can best be described as being bounded yet open (Palmer, 2017). Boundaries are created through the participants' critical use of digital tools such as the LMS, FOSS, and open/closed proprietary educational technologies. One example relates to Orion's lived experiences and efforts to consistently create learning spaces outside of the LMS systems that most higher education environments use for student online learning. This bounded, yet open, description of learning spaces is also exemplified in Aquila’s use of Discord as the primary learning space for students in their courses.

Efforts by the TEds in this research to apply an intentional and critical lens to materials, processes, and technologies for teaching and learning can be clouded by a veil of protectionism. I notice how the participants’ stories reveal how they work within, yet push against the tensions between protection and permissions, as exemplified by Merak’s comments of the feelings of stress between their desire for students to share openly versus their need to ensure student safety. Participants in this research provide shared examples of how they negotiate with themselves and their students when making intentional decisions to share teaching and learning transparently and openly with each other. I notice that participants also consider intentional choices to share with wider audiences, as exemplified in Andromeda and Lyra’s open Pressbook publication created by students in their courses. This critical approach also recognizes the ongoing efforts participants make to break down barriers and confront ongoing issues that occur while infusing MDL into their OEPr. For example, Perseus states a commitment to push boundaries for scholarly works with a commitment to only publish in open access journals which exemplifies a recognition and awareness of the needs of opening boundaries to a broader audience. Sabik mentions a commitment to push boundaries of decolonization and amplifying marginalized voices, which exemplifies an MDL focusing on access and entry. Andromeda relates a commitment to designing options for open learning spaces within their course designs which exemplifies a stance toward knowledge building and sharing.

Criticality is also evident in the findings in how participants examine, impose, and push through boundaries as they construct and share their digital identity and in how they make decisions about circulating and sharing their own or student media productions and learning artifacts (Veletsianos & Stewart, 2016). Boundaries for the participants involve how, where, what, and when they disclose academic and personal information that shapes their identities (Belshaw, 2011; Cronin, 2017; Veletsianos & Stewart, 2016). Critical approaches for disclosure are selective and intentional, and are dependent on the networks or communities in which they are participating (Veletsianos & Stewart, 2016).

Although I prefer the term digital persona (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013) to describe an individual’s digital presence, participants in this research share stories of their strategic decisions to cross boundaries or stretch the boundaries within which their digital persona is shared. This includes specific approaches for the use of singular or multiple avatar images, both realistic and figurative, to shape their complex digital personas, thus applying flexible, multiple, and nuanced representations of self in digital spaces (Hildebrandt & Couros, 2016; Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013; Veletsianos & Stewart, 2016).

The teacher educators in this research apply their media skills and fluencies to the production and creation of digital avatars, voices, and multimodal renderings of who they are becoming as teacher educators, scholars, and open education practitioners. This is seen for example in the images, audio recordings, and web curation work done by Vega or the web curated materials by Polaris, shared openly as part of their course content collections which are critically shaped and created to support student learning. The boundaries for transitional and evolving digital persona link to the notion of "being" and "becoming" as identified by Gee (2017), emphasizing this state of impermanence of digital personas. In this research becoming an open educator or becoming media and digitally literate shifts toward the liminality of these persona, whereby participant TEds are continually becoming by crossing personal and professional boundaries, both self-drawn and organizationally expected. Tur et al., (2020) posit that this process occurs through boundary crossing as a right-of-passage involving doing (experiences), sense making (knowledge) and identities (being) that are transformative, troublesome, and liminal.

Nascimbeni and Burgos (2016) suggest that an open educator aims to work “through an open online identity and relies on online social networking to enrich and implement his/her work, understanding that collaboration bears a responsibility towards the work of others” (p. 4). Beyond creating and communicating digital versions of themselves and course materials, the participants set boundaries in their personal and professional communications within intra- and inter- professional networks while they web-together learning opportunities for their students and themselves in ongoing and dynamic ways (Mentis et al., 2015; Veletsianos & Stewart, 2016). The integration of internet publication for circulating and sharing learning activities through blogging or other social media tools is sometimes integrated into course work for students, which in turn requires the participants themselves to model how to open boundaries safely and ethically when communicating to an unknown audience using multimedia productions. For example, Perseus ponders how to pay close attention and scaffold reflective, critical, open participation in order to discover boundaries between personal/professional and home/school for self and students. Critical media awareness is modelled through text selection, use of space on the ‘page’, integration of accessibility standards, use of non-text-based elements such as icons, images or video, an increasing awareness of Creative Commons licensing, and the application of a publication status ranging from private, unlisted, or publicly accessible communications as explored in teacher education by Paskevicius (2021). In this way, the participants indicate how they model efforts to critically analyse and push through organizational structures that close boundaries and negate student voice. Several participants mention having critical conversations with students about the safe and ethical circulation of media productions, particularly when issues arise.

This page references:

Affinity Spaces - glossary item