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 2023-04-24T16:48:06+00:00 Dimension 4.2 8 discussion facet 4.2: criticality in examining boundaries plain 2023-10-02T16:12:51+00:00

  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.
   
• 1 2023-04-24T16:43:42+00:00 Dimension 4.1 6 discussion of dimension 4.1: criticality in the selection of tools, technologies, spaces, and places plain 2023-10-02T16:07:08+00:00

  Criticality in the selection of tools, technologies, spaces, and places

  Careful and reasoned examinations of software and hardware for pedagogical applications for use in FoE are not usually conducted by faculty but rather by technology support staff or purchasing agents. For many participants in this research, their OEPr includes criticality through self-reflection and examination of platform technologies for “predictive logics and commercial interests … which can work against their pedagogical values and commitments” (Nichols et al., 2021, p. 348). Platforms are defined as both infrastructures upon which applications are constructed and operated, as well as the “online networks that facilitate economic and social exchanges” (Nichols et al., 2021, p. 345). For participants in this research, their MDL within their OEPr includes a critical examination of platforms, tools and technologies not just for technical construction or socio-economic dimensions (Nichols et al., 2021) but also for pedagogical applications. Criticality of tools and technologies is evident in Rigel’s questions about to platform capitalism and Perseus' comments of technological architectures that embed market logics to perpetuate attentional economies. For Izar and Orion this criticality includes decisions relating to tools and technologies for the curation and aggregation of student work with a view toward technological agnosticism. 
  
            Implicit in the findings of participants’ lived experiences with platforms and technologies are critical approaches that examine hereditary concepts of MDL that spotlight the integrations of users, technologies, and content into educational contexts and distributed within “technical infrastructures and socio-economic relations” (Nichols & Stornaiuolo, 2019, p. 14). Connecting to Nichols and Stornaiuolo's (2019) research into digital literacies, I notice that Andromeda and Rigel question the impact and efficacy of integrating social media into course designs, Dorado and Leonis examine the synchronous or asynchronous delivery of content and connections in light of pandemic teaching and learning structures, Polaris questions the purpose of video captured lectures as a barrier to engagement, and Carina and Perseus critically analyze the use of video-conferencing for classes and seminars.
  
            Participants in this research share their critical approaches to analyzing spaces and places for learning engagement. Nichols et al. (2021) suggested that criticality in MDL is helpful in identifying and analyzing digital practices, in order to contribute to a “wider repertoire of tactics for mapping, critiquing, and transforming digital ecosystems” (p. 345) that has implications for teaching and practice. For Andromeda, Aquila, Perseus, Polaris, and Rigel this means explicitly teaching students to identify invasive forms of digital and media ownership and governance that infiltrate and underpin the technologies being used in the education sector (Nichols & Stornaiuolo, 2019).
  
            Criticality involves the creation of spaces for building knowledge that is grounded in the labour of marginalized communities while interrogating where people in positions of power inadvertently or intentionally erase the knowledge work created, as suggested by Collier and Lohnes-Watulak (Mackenzie et al., 2021). This is of particular importance to TEds in Canadian FoE in light of efforts to address and respond to issues identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Calls to Action (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015). Opportunities to remix content and produce multimedia elements in courses in the FoE offers students a creative way to show what they know, thus “troubling the traditional definitions of academic authorship and knowledge … these new forms could validate understandings rooted in communities of colour, indigenous communities, and queer communities” (Mackenzie et al., 2021, p. 310). Opportunities for marginalized populations to share their stories as modelled in FoE, can shape the way TEds and TCs address concerns relating to access, equity, indigeneity, diversity, and marginalization. This echoes how criticality is applied to expressions of social imaginaries, described as the shared collections of artefacts, images and sounds constituting the representational milieu within which individuals give and receive communicated knowledge (Wallis & Rocha, 2022).
  
            For the TEds in this research, this approach to criticality includes questioning and examining the tools, technologies, spaces, and places where teaching and learning occur, not only for their own courses, but also within the K-12 schools into which their TCs deploy. This is evident in Perseus' experiences with critical approaches to the video-enabled teaching spaces resulting from COVID pandemic teaching, Leonis' efforts to engage marginalized Muslim-Canadians' voices in video storytelling, and Aquila’s critical views of LMS when sharing experiences of students communications since the “LMS discussion forum is a place where ideas go to die”.