This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-04-15T15:51:40+00:00 Open Education 18 This is a page in the literature review but also a stand alone description of open education concepts and frameworks. plain 91 2020-05-04T20:47:04+00:00      Open education includes the "simple and powerful idea that the world’s knowledge is a public good and that technology in general and the Web in particular provide an extraordinary opportunity for everyone to share, use, and reuse knowledge” (Geser, 2012). Openly available technologies, education and scholarship are a “shared enterprise, a communal act” (Blomgren, 2018, p. 64). From this vision, Wiley & Hilton's (2018) conception for the integration and application of the five R’s of reuse, revision, remixing, retention, and redistributing resources within pedagogical practices foundational to my research. The following conceptualization of open education frames my work.

  Open education is a way of carrying out education, often using digital technologies. Its aim is to widen access and participation to everyone by removing barriers and making learning accessible, abundant, and customisable for all. It offers multiple ways of teaching and learning, building and sharing knowledge. It also provides a variety of access routes to formal and non-formal education, and connects the two (Inamorato dos Santos, 2019, p. 6).

  This definition is framed in the UNESCO document Opening Up Education where a ten-dimensional framework outlines six core dimensions (access, content, pedagogy, recognition, collaboration, and research) supported by four transversal dimensions (strategy, technology, quality, and leadership) (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016). This framework is helpful in understanding the construct of open education.
       Stories abound in the field of open education - #101OpenStories. Open education predates digital technologies (Noddings & Enright, 1983). Open education is not constrained or limited to digital resource production, digitally enabled teaching and learning, or electronic distribution of learning materials. For this research, digital is a primary component of open education. Cronin and MacLaren (2018) posit the extensive reach of open education conceptions to describe "not just policy, practices, resources, curricula and pedagogy, but also the values inherent within these, as well as relationships between teachers and learners" (p. 217). That being said, there are many conceptions, definitions, and visions for open education in relation to:
  1. open educational resources (Bayne et al., 2015; Rolfe, 2012; Weller, 2014);
  2. open scholarship (Stewart, 2015; Veletsianos, 2015; Weller, 2016);
  3. the open education movement (Alevizou, 2015; Couros, 2006; Farrow, 2016; Rolfe, 2017);
  4. open pedagogies (Armellini & Nie, 2013; Hegarty, 2015, Paskevicius & Irvine, 2019, Wiley & Hilton, 2018); and
  5. open education practices (Couros, 2010; Cronin & MacLaren, 2018, Paskevicius, 2017; Roberts et al.,, 2018; Roberts, 2019; Stagg, 2017).
  While the dominant research discourse focuses on open education resources, my research will focus on the transformative potential of OEPr, which is underrepresented in scholarly work, particularly in the field of education, (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018; Nascimbeni, 2018; Paskevicius, 2018; Roberts, 2019, Tur et al., 2020). This graphic sketchnote may illuminate some of the key elements found in open educational contexts.
  
  For clarification, I differentiate between open education practices using OEPr, rather than the usually applied acronym OEP which is commonly applied to both open pedagogies and open practices. In this way I hope to add to the evolution of this term and provide clarity in naming this concept. I will next define OER, explore a framework for open pedagogy, and elaborate on conceptions of OEPr. 
   
• 1 2020-04-17T20:20:29+00:00 Methods 5 This is a subsection of the literature review. plain 2020-05-04T21:49:32+00:00      For this digital ethnographic research, I will apply a purposeful selection of participants from my known networks, and engage a snowball technique to meet the optimal minimum number of fifteen (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). A smaller sample size may be sufficient to reach saturation, but the purpose of this research is to crystallize the lived experiences and stories, which is not dependent on quantity but rather quality to achieve rich and thick descriptions. Participant selection will be limited to Canadian teacher educators, despite context differences or geographic distances. I will not limit participation to specific teaching roles or areas of expertise, but this information will be included in the data collection. I will request access to participants’ course syllabi, social media sites, and other relevant web locations or resources with potential connections to the research questions.  Data collection will include web searches, online interviews, transcripts, field note, participant generated reflective stories about their OEPr, and researcher prepared media recreations, in order to explore fluencies, collaborations, patterns and networks (Hine, 2015; Markham, 2016).
        The invitation to participate will be emailed to each participant, along with the consent form. This will include a link to a video introducing them to me as the researcher and the research purpose, plan, and schedule. The interview protocol will be piloted and trialed prior to the research, including one test using the video technology with someone new to that digital environment. I will email the interview protocol to each participant upon reception of the informed consent form, not for participants to feel obliged to complete a written or prepared response, but to ease any concerns or anxieties. In order to model an accessible and multimodal research format, as outlined in the crystallization methodology for this research, an audio recording of the informed consent and interview protocol will accompany the email communications.
       Interviews will be conveniently scheduled, being sensitive to time zone differences. The interview will include basic demographic information and semi-structured question prompts which will explore the lived experiences and stories relevant to intersections between OEPr and MDL (media & digital literacies). These interviews will be recorded using Zoom or other recording technology for audio, with optional video recording at the participant’s discretion. Interview transcripts will be returned to participants for review and revision/additions, using ‘track changes’ or ‘suggestions’ in Word/Google doc. Once completed, transcriptions will be rendered into an alternative media remix version using word cloud generator software (e.g. Word Art), which will also be shared with the participant for feedback, since these ethnographic stories have the “capacity to re-present the world in ways that are generative for people and practices” (Winthereik & Verran, 2012, p. 37) and represent an example of crystallization (Ellingson, 2009). Researcher field notes and reflections will be recorded throughout this process.
       I will ask participants for access to their selected social media sites (blogs, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Slack, TikTok, etc) and randomly track their participation in those spaces, where OEPr are shared, for up to three weeks. This will provide a rich, thick description of their interactions in open digital spaces. The course syllabi that participants choose to share will add additional links to their OEPr and MDL. They may provide additional sources of information as requested in the informed consent form.
      The request for participants to prepare a reflexive story using a digital media production tool of their choice as modelled on my experience with Jenni Hayman for the #101OpenStories event (see https://fiveflames4learning.com/2017/07/27/whats-your-story/). This media/digital production with willing participants will provide an additional data point as this artifact can reveal their ‘storied self’. From this digital ethnography landscape, the interviews, transcripts, blog posts, website information, reflective productions, and media recreations will reveal the cultural and cognitive structures, codes, and networks. In this ecology, the technology is central to the nonhuman and human elements being studied (Markham, 2016).
       Data analysis will occur using crystallizing mechanisms to initially and theoretical code the information (Saldaña, 2016). This will provide rich, thick descriptions, extend the collaborations with participants as media re-presentations and transcripts are shared back and forth. Preliminary results will also be shared with participants for feedback prior to finalizing for publication to ensure accuracy, ‘honouring their stories’. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and credibility (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) will be discussed next, since this will impact the worth and value of this research.