Open learning design for using open educational practices in high school learning contexts and beyond

Open educational resources

OER are as follows:

[…] learning, teaching and research materials in any format and medium that reside in the public domain or are under copyright that have been released under an open license, that permit no cost access, reuse, repurpose, adaptation and redistribution by others. (UNESCO, 2018)

Current research which examines OER in K-12 learning environments is still emerging, which can be due, in part, to the limited awareness around OER in K-12 learning environments in Canada. Blomgren’s (2018) summary of K-12 OER research also affirms McGreal’s (2017) summary that identifies a potential activity gap in the use of K-12 OER in Canadian contexts.

Open educational practices

K-12 educators are exploring the learning possibilities that multimodal, complex and networked digital learning environments can provide for learners, such as OEP as an emerging pedagogical approach. OEP has been defined as:

[…] practices which support the re (use) and production of open educational resources (OER) through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning paths. (Ehlers, 2011, p. 4)

Some OEP definitions have expanded to include educators focusing on practice and student created content enabled by OER (Wiley and Hilton, 2018; Wiley et al., 2017). Other OEP definitions have expanded a focus on open pedagogy (Hegarty, 2015) power relations and inequality in open learning (Bali et al., 2020; Czerniewicz et al., 2017), and Cronin (2017) has suggested that OEP is highlighted by a focus on the open learning process which may or may not include OER. As de los Arcos et al. (2016) document, K-12 educators have difficulty in defining OER, open education and sharing their awareness of open practices. However, OEP have the potential to provide connections to the informal learning that takes place in communities and families outside of classrooms to reconceptualize online learning to expand learning boundaries that personalize and make learning equitable (Lee, 2018).

Open learning designs

Some of the current research in open learning designs has included creating and examining OER (Blomgren, 2018; de los Arcos et al., 2016; Kimmons, 2015), learning in participatory culture which includes informal learning contexts (Jenkins et al., 2016) and collaborative knowledge building (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2014). In addition, other researchers have focused on learning designs using clusters of innovative pedagogies (Paniagua and Istance, 2018) practices that support integrating social media (Greenhow and Askari, 2017) and learning designs that encourage sharing using OER’s and participatory practices (Conole, 2013; Hegarty, 2015).

Open learning design intervention

The contemporary construct of OEP in K-12 learning contexts inspired the Open Learning Design intervention (OLDI) framework which promotes:

• the development of building relationships;

• an emphasis on the development of digital literacies;

• an opportunity to interact, connect and collaborate with other nodes of learning will lead to the development of; and

• a personal learning network and an understanding of the potential of open learning for themselves.

Study and method

DBR was the methodological approach used given the emphasis on researcher-practitioner collaboration, the progression of inquiry through iterative phases to evaluate a specific intervention that impacts local practice and the commitment to providing theoretical insights to expand educational theory (McKenney and Reeves, 2012). The study explored how open educational practice (OEP) can expand learning opportunities for K-12 learners through student, teacher and researcher perspectives using OLDI in a high school learning environment. The intervention involved a choice of lessons and activities that were co-designed by the researcher and teacher through four learner pathways in which they scaffolded and supported Grade 10 (15- and 16-year-old) students.

The research process included three phases:

1. the analysis and exploration phase;

2. the designing and construction phase; and

3. the evaluation and reflection phase.

Figure 1 is an adaptation of McKenney and Reeve’s (2012, p. 78) generic model for DBR and provides an overview of the micro, meso and macro cycles of this study that were included in each of the three macro phases.

Within meso phase one, the first iteration of OLDI was used as a framework to inform the development of open learning via learner pathways. Phase one included two initial prototypes (using the OLDI framework), which were called Learning Pathway 1 (LP1): Searching Online and Learning and Pathway 2 (LP2): Data and Privacy. Within Phase 1, students were introduced to different pedagogical approaches (like inquiry and design thinking) to learn how to find information and complete projects without direct teacher instruction. To create and share digital artifacts, students were encouraged to learn about digital literacies, citizenship, networking, information literacy, student data privacy and security by actively learning by doing. Within each learning pathway, the DBR process was also followed using micro versions of analysis and exploration phase, the designing and construction phase and the evaluation and reflection phases as highlighted in Figure 1. In Meso phase 2, two complete micro cycles of DBR research were completed called Learning Pathway 3 (LP3): Solving a Community Problem and learning Pathway 4 (LP4): Storytelling and Perspectives. In LP3, students were asked to complete a networked digitally based project that made a difference in their community, guided by municipal city employees. For LP4, students were asked to explore their unconscious bias by learning about storytelling from multiple perspectives and mediums. Finally, within Meso phase 3, the data analysis from all the phases was compared and contrasted and a revised OLDI framework was developed.

Participants

The research participants included one high school teacher, one researcher and 23 Grade 10 students in a high school alternative cohort program, in a Canadian school district. The teacher had been teaching the alternative program for 5 years with a second teacher who was not included in the study. An equal number of male (n = 11) and female (n = 11) students participated in the study and one student who self-identified as other.

The participants were all part of the alternative program which offered an interdisciplinary integration of core high school courses while building a house at an on-site location. Students applied and were interviewed to participate in the program prior to researcher involvement. The application process ensured that students with a wide variety of academic skills and abilities from multiple high schools within the district with multiple cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds were included in the program. Students spent part of everyday building and working with local tradespeople as well as completing core courses (English language arts, social studies, mathematics and science) and option courses. The participating teacher chose to integrate OEP into his learning design. The researcher co-designed the course with the teacher and all students in the class. The large school jurisdiction had a bring your own device policy which meant that all students had some kind of digital device to use for learning or the teacher would provide a digital device for them.

The integration of OEP provided the teacher and students an opportunity to be active and collaborative participants in the DBR research process and to highlight key principles to consider when designing learning using OEP. The OLDI expanded on the teacher’s previous learning design by encouraging the students to use nodes of learning, which may include people, digital communities and digital resources (Johnson, 2008; Siemens, 2005) the use of multiple digital platforms, choice of digital tools, social media presence, community experts, student digital artifacts and student presentations. The connections between the nodes supported connections and interactions with outside the formal classroom networks, as they contextually pertained to each cycle’s focus. The participants contributed to data collection and were active in guiding and influencing the OLDI as a result of their feedback and engagement in the research process.

Data collection and analysis

In this DBR study, multiple forms of data were collected, including student, teacher and researcher reflections, classroom observations and Visitor and Resident maps (VandR maps) (White and LeCornu, 2017). Given the specific nature of the OLDI and the context for this research, in a K-12 school jurisdiction, additional attention was paid to student privacy and confidentiality. The students and parents self-selected if they wanted to consent to be a part of the research study or not, and this consent was communicated and clarified throughout the process. All students and parents (whether the students gave consent to the research or not) were included in a robust communication plan that included additional resources and learning about digital privacy, safety, citizenship and literacies. Parents were often asked to come into the class, or through take home activities to give them the opportunity observe and participate in the learning process firsthand.

Table 1 highlights the variety of data collected throughout the research.

Participant reflections and classroom observations enabled the researcher to capture perspectives on and experiences with open learning and document how learning expanded beyond formal learning environments into informal participatory networks. Each form of data was coded and organized, then triangulated by comparing and contrasting the reflections, observations and digital artifacts in light of the extant literature and research questions. The student reflections, the formative assessment provided to the students throughout classroom observations and project completion, the final projects and the V and R maps, provided the researcher with multiple perspectives to consider when designing with OEP in high school contexts. The data collection was consistently shared with participants then analyzed after each learning pathway which ensured that the OLDI changed and was iterated as each learning pathway was completed, then analyzed using Hegarty’s (2015) Principles of Open Pedagogy as a lens.

Preliminary findings from phases

Based on the synthesis of data from reflections, classroom observations and V and R maps, the findings were distilled to capture students’ and teachers’ perspectives of and experiences with open learning.

Developing an awareness of open learning

This quote illustrates a students’ perspective on open learning experiences:

[…] real learning isn’t done behind walls or with boundaries, I believe that the real learning begins when we are left to figure something out, to problem solve, to collaborate and discuss with people of experience. It's about the “doing” and what can be learned from the experience (Student E).

Emerging principles of open learning design

The data collection included teacher, student and researchers notes and reflections which helped to identify the teacher’s perceptions of how the OLDI encouraged the students to make learning relevant for themselves. As the teacher reflected:

I always think back to small little comments that kids have made throughout this whole process of like, “Oh, wow. Look, I’m actually learning something”, or, “I’ve never even thought about it this way”.

Similarly, the student reflections revealed how the learning design encouraged the students to expand their learning beyond their previous learning experiences and contexts:

For me the main difference is flexibility in being able to choose how and what to learn. With the accessibility and technology we hold in our very hands today it should be a tool we use on a daily basis, interactions and learning from one another, working together - it’s the reason we’ve gotten so far. When working with others you must have an open mind and the willingness to learn, it builds up your knowledge of topics you may have never known much about before (Student E).

An emerging theme described by the students and teachers throughout LP1, LP2 and LP3 was the opportunity to hear, listen and consider different perspectives. This was described because of the interactions, collaborations and connections within the class and outside the classroom with different peers, adults, content and social media:

Throughout all three projects we began to branch out more and more to different people with different views. In our first project we didn’t make any community connections, then in our second project we reached out exclusively to the youth of (city), then finally in our third and final project we were able to make connections with all sorts of people. With those who we were close with and with some who we had never even heard the names of before (Student I).

Development of an open learning design framework

The distinct equity-focused data emerged from the fourth iteration or Learning Pathway 4 (LP4). Originally, the DBR study was designed for three iterations or learning pathways with the students. The decision to design for another learning pathway was made by the teacher and the researcher for closure because the teacher and researcher still had open learning design questions they wanted to answer after the original completion of LP3. The teacher had a desire to design for learning that connected to community, but not necessarily through digital communities and networks. The researcher was curious about how the OLDI framework could be applied by connecting digital networks, people, ideas, resources and communities. A few of the students had also questioned the connections to Alberta curriculum in LP3 during the classroom observations, as such, the teacher and researcher collaborated to design for a learning pathway that focused on integrating with language arts and social studies curriculum learning outcomes. Due to the findings, which had highlighted the emphasis on different perspectives in LP1-LP3, LP4 was designed as an integration of two interdisciplinary units, the short story unit from English and a social studies unit that focused on how contemporary society responds to the legacies of historical globalization.

It was essential that the learning design clearly connected the curriculum outcomes with the concept of multiple perspectives. A change to the design was the amount of people included in the design of this learning pathway, compared to the other three. When the teacher decided to extend the research project for another learning pathway, the researcher started to connect with other school districts specialists to ensure some additional expertise in perspectives, specifically Indigenous knowledge and literacy.

In LP4, instead of using google classroom, the students were introduced to an open digital project management platform to share resources and ideas between the students, parents, fellow educators, Indigenous Elders and the community to provide a way in which to watch over the learning to ensure authentic and meaningful knowledge sharing. The students were asked to examine the provincial collaboratively designed Indigenous Literature Kits for K-12 as short story resources instead of the traditional textbook short stories from Grade 10. They were introduced to Canadian history and storytelling through Elders stories and by attending a multi-media professional play about the key themes in the history of Canada. The students also learned about the Industrial Revolution and its impact on Canada from an Indigenous perspective by listening to an Elder walk them through the blanket activity which is designed to be used as a lens to consider our shared history as Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.

The researcher notes documented the design changes in her observations:

The way in which students connected and interacted with others outside the classroom also had to be reconsidered. The teacher and researcher would use the OLDI framework to expand the learning beyond the classroom walls by inviting a wide variety of experts, knowledge builders and knowledge keepers into the classroom, in face to face contexts and digital contexts by focusing on building relationships with people and other nodes of learning. The immediate family of the students, teachers and researchers were invited to attend all learning activities where outside experts were invited into the classroom or on field trips outside the classroom.

Initially, the researcher reflections demonstrated a change in student engagement between LP3 and LP4. The researcher reflections noted the evidence of student engagement:

I left the class wondering how they could have come so far in just 4 days. The student engagement, willingness to contribute to the discussion, to share, to think about different perspectives was evident in so many different ways – by so many different students. (Researcher reflections)

Open educational practices and open learning design

The following student reflections highlight an increase in understanding which identified alternative perspectives and empathy for others. In the reflections, the student comments had transitioned from learning how to expand their learning from the classroom to the outside community in LP3 using their shared experiences, to transforming the way they had previously been thinking and experiencing their learning in LP4:

[…] this experience gave me a deeper understanding of what it's really like. During the field trip, I realized how quick we are to judge people who we don't even know. We make assumptions about people based on the clothes they wear, the way they walk and talk, etc. We do this without knowing anything about who they are or what kind of life they have had (Student D).

Originally it was a lot to take in, but this time around I noticed I was more drawn to the reactions of those around me. I found it interesting to see how each individual was influenced, especially when hearing their personal and sensitive thoughts out loud. Even the simplistic body language, and tone of voice affected the energy in the room, which seemed all at once. For me personally, being able to walk around the city I call home, and to be shown the history and parts of it through a different lens was incredible. Learning something that relates back to me is so much more powerful than reading from a textbook, or even hearing it from a speaker first hand. I found myself engaged and at parts taken aback (Student G).

By the end of LP4, students were able to use their personal learning experiences with their peers in connection with the prescribed curriculum. When they were asked why sharing their stories, and not just listening to stories was so important for learning the students answered:

“It might help someone else’s perspective”. (Student A)

“People telling stories – explaining how it was bad and now it is better gives hope to others”. (Student C)

Final project data analysis

At the completion of each of the four learning pathways, the researcher did a full data analysis that started by reviewing all data sources within each learning pathway, then coding, comparing and contrasting findings between learning pathways, and then synthesizing findings across pathways in relation to the research questions. Key findings were compared and contrasted using Hegarty’s (2015) eight attributes of open pedagogy as well as the contemporary construct of open learning in high school from the literature review. The comparative analysis revealed many similarities between study findings and the eight attributes of open pedagogy. However, the data-informed examples from high school open learning contexts were more inclusive of socio-constructivist, student-centered, participatory and networked pedagogical practices. Further, findings emphasized the learning process and open learner readiness, rather than emphasizing the use or creation of OER content. The learning expanded between personal informal spaces and institutional formal learning spaces. By using Hegarty’s (2015) attributes of open pedagogy to analyze the research findings from this project, the research provided new insights from open learning in high school learning contexts that can be added to the current research base in open learning. The following text describes some of the ways in which Hegarty’s (2015) attributes of open learning were similar and different in the present research findings.

Stage 1: building relationships

In this stage, participants choose to build relationships with each other, which can include teacher–student relationships and student–student relationships, through communicating interests and passions. To develop learner-focused relationships, the relationships need to be supported throughout a learning experience. The relationships were dependent upon the safe learning spaces described in student reflections as spaces where student choices, voices and perspectives are promoted, supported through relationships, resources, feedback and time.

Stage 2: co-designing learning pathways

The learner relationships initially focused on students developing self-awareness about self as a learner, communicating their passions and interests and having the opportunity to integrate personal and meaningful learning opportunities into the learning design through co-design. In this stage the learner and teacher (facilitator) negotiate how to co-design their learning pathway to meet the student’s learning needs in order to ensure that the curriculum is covered. Co-designing learning involves negotiating personal learning contexts that encourage students to consider pedagogical delivery, learning pathway criteria, identification of learning roles and personal learning accountability and responsibilities. The student needs to be engaged in the learning process that is developed through agency and transparency in the teacher’s practice. Co-designing includes helping the student to make connections to how the learning concept or idea is personally relevant and engaging through formative assessment and multiple feedback loops to guide the personalized learning pathways.

Stage 3: building knowledge and sharing learning openly

As part of the co-design of learning processes, teachers and students negotiate multiple ways in which to demonstrate their learning openly by communicating evidence of their learning process. When co-designing learning pathways, students are offered a choice about how they can learn which includes connections to curriculum and competencies and an explanation of why they are learning about a particular learning concept, context or idea. Stage three provides the space for the students to demonstrate their open learning understanding and readiness to share at macro, meso, micro and nano levels (Cronin, 2017) by demonstrating evidence of their learning in multiple ways.

Stage 4: expanding personal learning environments

A PLE is defined as a combination of tools, sources of information, connections and activities each person uses regularly to learn (Adell and Castañeda, 2010, p. 23). Every learner develops their own PLE in their own unique way. It is up to the teacher to support the learner in expanding their PLE from a teacher-centric classroom community to a potential global network, depending on the open readiness of the learner. Expanding PLEs is a life-long process in which OEP, in high school learning contexts, can provide the opportunity for students to develop awareness about unlimited learning potentials and their place within a supportive and sustainable learning ecosystem.