No abstract

OEP (open educational practices), inclusive of open pedagogy, is often understood with respect to the use of OER (open educational resources) but can be conceived with more expansive conceptualisations (see Cronin & McLaren 2018; DeRosa & Jhangiani 2017; Koseoglu & Bozkurt 2018). This article attempts to build on existing OEP research and practice in two ways. First, we provide a typology of OEP, giving examples of practices across a continuum of openness and along three axes: from content-centric to process-centric, teacher-centric to learner-centric, and practices that are primarily for pedagogical purposes to primarily for social justice (Bali 2017). Second, we employ Hodgkinson-Williams and Trotter's (2018) conceptual framework, which builds on Fraser's model of social justice, to critically analyse the ways in which the use/impact of OEP might be considered socially just, with a particular focus on expansive, process-centric OEP. We analyze for whom and in which contexts OEP can (i) support social justice along economic, cultural and political dimensions, and (ii) do so in transformative, ameliorative, neutral or even negative ways. We use the typology and framework to analyse specific process-centric forms of OEP including collaborative annotation, Wikipedia editing, open networked courses, Virtually Connecting, public scholarship, and learner-created OER. Analysing specific practices highlights diversity across the axes and subtle differences among them, such as when a particular practice is considered good pedagogy and how it can be modified to be more oriented towards social justice. We discuss limitations of each practice not just from its discourse and design, but also how it works in practice.

For transformation to occur in learning environments and for learners, higher education must first consider how such transformation will occur for the designers and facilitators of learning experiences: the university teachers or educators we call faculty (in the US), instructors, lecturers or professors or, in some instances, university staff. For the purpose of this article, we will refer to them as educators or faculty, and the process of their professional development as educational development or faculty development (more historically common in the US context). We aspire towards universities in the future that cultivate connected, participatory educational development that crosses institutional and national boundaries, and which takes equity, social justice and power differences into consideration, promoting educator agency. We propose theoretical underpinnings of our approach, while also highlighting some examples of recent practice that inspire this direction, but which are small in scale, and can provide springboards for future approaches that may be applied on a wider scale and become more fully integrated, supported and rewarded in institutions. Our theoretical underpinnings are influenced by theories of heutagogy and self-determined learning, transformative learning, connectivist and connected learning, and an interest in equity. We share models of alternative approaches to educator development that take advantage of the latest advances in technology, such as #DigPINS, Virtually Connecting, collaborative annotation, and dual-pathway MOOCs. We then share a semi-fictional authoethnography of our (the authors') daily connected lives, and we end by highlighting elements of the models we shared that we feel could be adapted by institutions to achieve educator professional development that is more transformative, participatory, and equitable.

This article contributes to the literature on connectivism, connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) and rhizomatic learning by examining participant interactions, community formation and nomadic learner behavior in a particular cMOOC, #rhizo15, facilitated for 6 weeks by Dave Cormier. It further focuses on what we can learn by observing Twitter interactions particularly. As an explanatory mixed research design, Social Network Analysis and content analysis were employed for the purposes of the research. SNA is used at the macro, meso and micro levels, and content analysis of one week of the MOOC was conducted using the Community of Inquiry framework. The macro level analysis demonstrates that communities in a rhizomatic connectivist networks have chaotic relationships with other communities in different dimensions (clarified by use of hashtags of concurrent, past and future events). A key finding at the meso level was that as #rhizo15 progressed and number of active participants decreased, interaction increased in overall network. The micro level analysis further reveals that, though completely online, the nature of open online ecosystems are very convenient to facilitate the formation of community. The content analysis of week 3 tweets demonstrated that cognitive presence was the most frequently observed, while teaching presence (teaching behaviors of both facilitator and participants) was the lowest. This research recognizes the limitations of looking only at Twitter when #rhizo15 conversations occurred over multiple platforms frequented by overlapping but not identical groups of people. However, it provides a valuable partial perspective at the macro meso and micro levels that contribute to our understanding of community-building in cMOOCs.

Imagine the challenge of being immersed in a dynamic learning network where you play brinkmanship with being overwhelmed by a plethora of information, comments, and conversations on a topic of intense interest to you. Through adept facilitation, the comments and encouragement of fellow participants, and your own perseverance, you develop a network of personal connections which serve as metaphorical flying buttresses creating enough stability that you are able to learn in a new, yet profoundly meaningful way -the connectivist massive open online course (cMOOC) way. Through the lens of autoethnography, five seasoned educators collaboratively reflect on their motivation for participating in their initial cMOOC. They analyze their lived experience, what they found most engaging, and most importantly, they grapple with why cMOOC communities often endure past official end-dates. This article attempts to provide insight into the thrill and depth of learning and connection possible through participation in cMOOCs.