What’s my definition — understanding how I fit with openness?
One of the challenges I found around approaching openness within my own role, was oddly enough the framing of openness in relation to teaching and learning. I realised a stumbling block for me are the many definitions of Open Education Resources (OER) and Open Education Practice (OEP). Often definitions referred to teaching (the creation and use of teaching materials) and effects of open practice for academics.
Open Education Resources are broadly referred to as publicly accessible to use for teaching, learning and research purposes and which anyone can use, share, or adapt (Wikipedia). In a Higher Education context, it’s often easy to think of teaching and creation of teaching content as being something that academics or particular support roles (E-learning) ‘do’.
Key principles of Open Education Resources are the 5 Rs.
The 5 R’s are something I tried to keep in mind when reflecting on my own practice and activities I am involved with. In terms of Open Practice, University of Edinburgh suggest there is no ‘hard and fast definition’. Open Education Practice is said to include teaching techniques and academic practices, with OERs enabling opportunities for flexible and collaborative learning. The Edinburgh post views both teachers and learners as co-creators in learning by sharing experiences and professional practice.
I found this idea of Open Practice accessible as it includes learners (not just teachers) as being involved in co-creation of learning including creating and sharing OERs (content). The content or ‘what’ is being shared is also significant (experiences and professional practice). To me this definition essentially places all of us as being able to create, share and learn based on our experience and professional practice. (A point echoed by SPARC that we all have a role to play in open supporting open education and ‘increasing the discoverability’ of OERs).
Catherine Cronin (2017) points out OEP is a rapidly evolving area which has been described and theorised through many different frameworks. The many different faces of open can leave us wondering where we fit in and whether or not examples of our own ‘practice’ are valid.
Looking at the OKHE posts from other support staff, I found a range of approaches in situating their own roles and experiences within an open approach. For example, Simon talked about creating and sharing process documents with other professional support staff as a form of open practice. Simon’s post was also really useful in linking through to perspectives from colleagues like Mammaskull.
Mammaskull points out that often theories and literature refer to teaching practices and questioned where administration fits in — a sentiment that I identified with. She signposts to Carina Bossu who draws on the work of Catherine Cronin (2017) in suggesting that most people in HE are to ‘some extent’ open practitioners (including support staff as educators).
Mammaskull recognises that administrators share informal knowledge (the stuff you don’t find out from the official guides). So, in this sense support staff do revise, remix and redistribute content for different audiences. In my own role this might be taking key information from a policy and re-wording or interpreting it for an academic colleague, clinician or student.
To help me situate my own practice, I decided to reflect on my role in a particular scenario — the co-ordination of a teaching unit. The unit on Experimental Medicine involves University and NHS speakers. In organising the unit, I support openness by connecting people (facilitating knowledge sharing). Gemma’s post references some of the theories behind networks and connectedness more widely as an aspect of openness. I share information with speakers on online tools (Google Jamboard, Slido); tools which I have learnt about through the open practice of colleagues (OKHE unit and Yammer).
Another way I can bring openness to my own professional practice is reflecting on how openness is or isn’t taking place. The unit I support, as with many clinical subjects in Higher Education, relies upon individuals who work either wholly or partly within the NHS, contributing to teaching. So why do these individuals willingly and openly share their knowledge often for free? Martin Weller refers to potential advantages of openness including Altruism, Efficiency and Dissemination. It may be that the speakers are motivated to train the next generation. In sharing knowledge, they may be educating a future colleague. It may be an opportunity to share or highlight their own work or that of their employer, a platform to potentially influence students who could take back this knowledge and use it within their own practice.
As Lianne and others have mentioned openness often involves a personal dimension in deciding what we share, with whom, and for what benefit. Perhaps openness is driven by the magnitude of the impact of knowledge. For medical knowledge in particular the stakes are often greater, and openness provides a route to rapidly share knowledge which could save lives.
However, what happens to the information within the teaching unit I support? In the past there has been some openness in inviting a small number of students from PhD courses to sit in some sessions as guests. Yet, when it comes to allowing individuals from outside the University access, money becomes a barrier. We could informally let NHS staff sit in sessions as guests, but would this upset the students who are paying for this course? April McMahon suggested in her OKHE lecture that we need to think creatively about our teaching offering (CPD, short courses). However, in principle these alternative forms of delivery are often still behind institutional walls, with costs to access. The University expects others to openly share their knowledge for free, but then places it behind closed doors.
Did I reach a personal definition of openness? Perhaps not yet, but that’s ok. This post has helped me shape and reflect on the fact that we can all engage with open practice. Ultimately, we can all be involved as both ‘teachers’ and learners in many different situations.
