Open Praxis vol. 8 issue 4

Open Praxis, Dec 2016

This last Open Praxis issue in 2016 is an open issue that includes four research papers, two innovative practice papers and two book reviews. It also includes the list of reviewers that have collaborated in volume 8.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

Open Praxis vol. 8 issue 4

Open Praxis 2304-070X October-December 2016 OPEN PRAXIS 0 Editorial board Hemlata Chari, University of Mumbai, India Gangappa Kuruba, University of Botswana, Botswana Thomas P. Mackey, SUNY Empire State College , New York , United States Alan Tait , The Open University, United Kingdom Belinda Tynan, RMIT University , Melbourne, Australia Joel Warrican , University of the West Indies, Barbados Yang Zhijian, Open University of China (OUC) , China INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR OPEN AND DISTANCE EDUCATION - Open Praxis is a peer-reviewed open access scholarly journal focusing on research and innovation in open, distance and flexible education. It is published by the International Council for Open and Distance Education—ICDE The aim of Open Praxis is to provide a forum for global collaboration and discussion of issues in the practice of distance and e-learning. Open Praxis welcomes contributions which demonstrate creative and innovative research, and which highlight challenges, lessons and achievements in the practice of distance and e-learning from all over the world. — Open Praxis provides immediate open access to content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. — Open Praxis is a quarterly journal published in January–March, April–June, July–September and October–December. — Research articles and innovative practice articles are subject to double-blind peer review by a minimum of two Reviewers. — Authors need to register with Open Praxis prior to submitting, or if already registered can simply log in and begin the 5 step submission process. Publisher and contact information The ICDE Bulletin changed its name to Open Praxis in 1993. In 2003 became an electronic journal. In 2011 Open Praxis is relaunched as an scholarly and peer-reviewed open access journal, hosted by Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in its first period (2011–2017). Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: a. Authors retain copyright and grant Open Praxis right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in Open Praxis. b. Authors also grant ICDE right to publish a printed compendium of Open Praxis published articles in an annual basis. c. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Open Praxis. Open Praxis does not necessarily agree with opinions and judgements maintained by authors Table of Contents Introduction to Open Praxis volume 8 issue 4 Inés Gil-Jaurena Pedagogical framing of OER—The case of language teaching Linda Bradley, Sylvi Vigmo Web Strategies for the Curation and Discovery of Open Educational Resources Vivien Rolfe Student Assessment of Quality of Access at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) Juliet Obhajajie Inegbedion, Folorunso Israel Adu, Christine Yetunde Ofulue Role of Faculty Development Forums in Virtual Teaching Environment: A Case Study of Marketing Research & Case Group Rizwan Saleem Sandhu, Sajid Hussain Innovative practice articles Building Capacity for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in West Africa Sub-region: The Pivotal Role of RETRIDAL Clifford Amini, Oluwaseun Oluyide Teaching Project Management on-line: lessons learned from MOOCs Rita Falcao, Luis Fernandes Book review of Minds Online: Teaching Effectively With Technology Nathan Sand Book review of Developing Adaptive and Personalized Learning Environments Jason R Ward Introduction to Open Praxis volume 8 issue 4 Inés Gil-Jaurena Editor for Open Praxis. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia - UNED (Spain) This last Open Praxis issue in 2016 is an open issue that includes four research papers, two innovative practice papers and two book reviews. Open Praxis, a peer-reviewed open access scholarly journal focusing on research and innovation in open, distance and flexible education, publishes contributions which demonstrate creative and innovative research, and which highlight challenges, lessons and achievements in the practice of distance and e-learning from all over the world. In this issue, 14 authors from Sweden, United Kingdom, Nigeria, Pakistan, Portugal and the United States of America have contributed to the different sections. As a novelty from now on, Open Praxis will include authors’ ORCID identifiers. As stated in the ORCID website: “ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized” Open Praxis will include authors’ ORCID ID in each paper and metadata; once the paper is published, authors will be able to link their Open Praxis paper from their ORCID profile, using the CrossRef Metadata Search. Past, current and potential future Open Praxis authors are invited to join the ORCID community ( and to include their ORCID ID in their Open Praxis profile. Coming back to the content of this issue, the research papers section begins with two papers related to open educational resources (OER). The first one, by Linda Bradley and Sylvi Vigmo (Pedagogical framing of OER - The case of language teaching), analyze the case of, a Swedish repository of OER, and focus on teachers’ participation in it, specifically for the subjects Swedish as a Second Language and Swedish for Immigrants (thus, OER for language learning). The findings identify drivers and barriers for sharing OER, related to aspects such as the structure of the repository itself or the lack of awareness of the full implications of OER. Vivien Rolfe writes the second paper on OER; in her study, entitled Web Strategies for the Curation and Discovery of Open Educational Resources, presents an impact and sustainability analysis some years after a series of OER projects were developed in the UK. In the case of De Montfort University, they opted for using Wordpress and SEO techniques for hosting OER and making them discoverable. The paper details the technological aspects and results in this particular case, and reflects about its effectiveness providing practical insight and recommendations to readers interested on sustainable OER web distribution. The contribution by Juliet O. Inegbedion, Folorunso I. Adu and Christine Y. Ofulue, Student Assessment of Quality of Access at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), analyzes students’ perspective about admission and registration processes that they face when they want to access to NOUN study programmes. After introducing the history of NOUN and its commitment with providing higher education for all, the authors study the quality of the access processes, which can facilitate the fulfilment of the university mission. The findings show what students find more and less clear and useful, providing guidance to the institution for improvement of access to NOUN. The last research paper by Rizwan Saleem Sandhu and Sajid Hussain (Role of Faculty Development Forums in Virtual Teaching Environment: A Case Study of Marketing Research & Case Group) reports on the contribution of a faculty forum to professional development and capacity building of participants. The experience, where faculty present, listen, read, share, discuss, etc. in the forums, is valued by for the development of teaching skills in virtual environments. The authors report on the effectiveness of this modality for capacity building. The innovative practice paper section opens with another contribution related to professional development and capacity building; Clifford Amini and Oluwaseun Oluyide (Building Capacity for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in West Africa Sub-region: The Pivotal Role of RETRIDAL) describe and value the experience of the Regional Training and Research Institute for Distance and Open Learning (RETRIDAL), which develops different workshops and research in order to build a network of expertise in ODL in the region. The effort and impact of this centre are highlighted in the paper. Finally, Rita Falcao and Luis Fernandes (Teaching Project Management on-line: lessons learned from MOOCs) explore various MOOCs as a way of identifying appropriate teaching methods and strategies to introduce in their online courses about the same topic (project management). The benchmarking and meta-analysis of MOOCs has facilitated the design of an e-learning course that includes innovative elements and a student-centered approach; the process the authors have followed is narrated in the paper. Finally, the issue includes a review by Nathan Sand of the book Minds Online: Teaching Effectively With Technology, published in 2014; and a review by Jason R. Ward of the book Developing Adaptive and Personalized Learning Environments, published in 2016. Both books are of interest for open and online teaching. In this issue last issue in 2016, we specially thank all the reviewers who have collaborated in the four issues that compose volume 8. Their names and affiliations are listed in the full issue and in the journal website ( Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Pedagogical framing of OER—The case of language teaching Linda Bradley & Sylvi Vigmo University of Gothenburg (Sweden) & This study investigates what characterises teachers’ pedagogical design of OER, and potential affordances and constraints in pedagogical design in an open education practice, when contributing to a Swedish repository The teachers’ framing of the OER shared on the repository included the analyses of a delimited number of OER for learning Swedish. The analytical work with analysing what characterised the OER, was followed up with teacher interviews to explore teachers’ incentives for sharing. The OER selected for analysis were investigated linked to the features given in the repository, to identify what distinguished different categories of OER when framed by the teachers. The OER displayed a continuum of ways of framing an activity, though the majority was represented by low levels of description, which afforded less guidance. The teachers expressed a positive attitude towards sharing. The findings suggest that OER need to be defined and supported by web features to enable going beyond reuse. The development of Web 2.0 has led to new arenas for learning in which participation and contribution have a prominent position (Drotner, 2008; Dohn, 2009). Part of this development has been the increased databases of online materials for learners in general, and of particular interest for this paper the vast possibilities brought forth for teaching and learning activities in terms of online open access. What these potential transforming conditions can bring to education, are still under scrutiny from different perspectives and with challenging and critical questions. Open educational practice (OEP) and Open Educational Resources (OER) are such areas, commonly referred to as movements or initiatives. OER have not been as adopted in teaching and learning practice as first assumed when the concept was introduced at the UNESCO conference in 2002 where OER were defined as “educational resources that are freely available for use, reuse, adaptation, and sharing” (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012, p. 166). Similarly, Pawlowski and Bick (2012) explain OER as “freely accessible resources for educational purposes” (p. 209). A great deal of what is posted in online learning repositories is created by teachers to be used with students, in the classroom as well as online (Clements & Pawlowski, 2012; McGreal, 2011). To be able to define implications of OER, Wiley (2014) developed the so-called 5Rs framework (retain, reuse, revise, remix, re-distribute). The framework describes the following rights for access to materials: retain (the right to make, to own and control copies of content), reuse (in a wide range of ways), revise (adaptation, making adjustments, modifications and alterations), remix (combinations with the original or revised content with other open content, thereby making something new such as for example a mashup), and finally, re-distribute (sharing the new content with others) (Wiley, 2014). This paper aims to scrutinise a repository of OER from the point of view of what characterises teachers’ pedagogical design of OER in an open education practice and what the affordances and constraints are in teachers’ pedagogical design in the sharing of OER. To date, there is little research concerning teachers’ pedagogical design of OER and the potential implications of pedagogical foundations for OER which is the overarching interest of this study. The focus in our study is the Swedish repository of OER,, which is well-known in the Swedish teacher community1. The teachers’ uploading and sharing of learning activities and rationale for participation will be explored. The number of teachers who actively contribute by sharing their OER in the repository is low, however, when compared to the number of members in In the light of escalating migration, Swedish as a Second Language (SAS) and Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) are two subjects which are becoming increasingly important. With this as a point of departure, we argue it is of interest to shed light on teachers’ conditions for contributing and sharing OER in an online space designed specifically for teachers. The focus on Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) and Swedish as a Second Language (SAS) will serve as an example, due to its increased societal interest and potential interest on a more generic level linked to implications of the escalated migration. The number of posted OER to these two subject areas is low, which also reflects the state of OER in other subjects in this repository. To address the conditions for pedagogical design of OER by the community of teachers in the Swedish repository,, the following research questions were developed: 1. What characterises teachers’ pedagogical design of OER in open education practice, when digitally mediated on the repository 2. What are the potential affordances and constraints in pedagogical design in teachers’ sharing of OER on the repository Framing the concept of OER While it can be said that MIT introduced open educational materials in 2001, we have still not reached a shared understanding of how to conceptualise OER, and the ”fuzzy” concept is still being negotiated (Pawloski & Bick, 2012; Nikoi & Armellini, 2012). Tuomi (2013) argues we must ”provide a more detailed picture of the conditions of openness and the nature of open resources” (p. 60) to be able to discuss what OER can imply for learning. Furthermore, it is argued that OER could have an impact on the transformation of education, and could bring about “new forms of collaboration and production” (Tuomi, p. 73), together with “calls for a paradigm shift” for OEP (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012, p. 167). This in turn could ensure the development of high-quality OER as well as stimulate pedagogical innovation. Expectations have been high, but not yet been reached when it comes to adopting OER in education (Pawlowski & Bick, 2012). Concerning the impact on higher education, it has been argued that the value of OER is yet to be clarified, and there are issues in need of being addressed for OER to have an impact on education (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012). We have still not “reached a critical threshold” (2012, p. 167). In addition to this discussion, in order to understand OER we need to move from the current state as a “descriptive, prescriptive, and often speculative” perspective (2012). With respect to OER as part of the learning process when linked to the UNESCO definition, Blythe (2014) suggests that learning is a “process that requires editable, digital materials in keeping with the complex and dynamic nature of learning and teaching” (p. 662). Moreover, education is discussed as closed or open, which in turn indicates different approaches to learning and teaching materials. While a closed system implies traditions characterised by printed material, spaces for learning confined to classrooms and the focus of learning as knowledge as packaged into discrete units that are transmitted. Open education, on the other hand, is based on quite different assumptions. Open education assumes learning as creation in collaboration with others, including open digital materials that can be easily adapted to contextual conditions and requirements (Blythe, 2014, p. 662). Referring to Weller (2010), the granularity of OER is explained as part of a continuum, in which we can find large- and small-scale OER. The first can be exemplified with an online university course at one end of the line and with a lesson plan on the other end (Blythe, 2014). Similarly, Pawlowski and Bick (2012) referring to Pirkkalainen and Pawlowski (2010), also define OER as sharing “instructional/ didactic designs and experiences” of lessons, besides more physical artefacts such as textbooks (p. 209). Some issues concerning OER remain unresolved for researchers and according to Wiley, Bliss, and McEwen (2014) there are five remaining challenges that need to be tackled: metadata to enable OER search, sustainability linked to costs, imbalance between subjects, and addressing contextual aspects and remixing. Regarding the latter issue, Wiley, Bliss and McEwen (2014) suggest that there is little empirical evidence that users are engaged in more than reusing. From a specifically critical focus on the OER movement in higher education, Knox (2013) has reviewed current literature to investigate what foundations were given for encouraging OER and what views of learners were being implicitly assumed of relevance for teaching and learning. The findings indicate that there is a general lack of pedagogical rationale and theoretical framework connected to OER. Besides arguing for a critical exploration of the OER movement, Knox proposes the need for a critical exploration of the rationale for OER in higher education, research on the role of pedagogy, which tends to be overlooked when OER are connected to self-directed learning, as well as focusing on pedagogical implications of OER in education (Knox, 2013). Transforming conditions for teaching and learning During the last decades, research on teaching and learning on digitally mediated sites has received a great deal of attention, pointing in particular to questions of what potential consequences digital technologies may have on educational practices. Their transforming dimensions as cultural tools (Säljö, 2010) have been argued to bring social implications (Erstad, 2011) and are not easily compared with previous development of technologies. Human action as situated in social practices and the development and appropriation of technologies lead to a “performative nature of learning” according to Säljö (2010, p. 61). In a similar vein, Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison and Weigel (2006) framed a participatory culture that described how the affordances of digital tools enable ways of producing content, which increasingly have involved collaboration, co-authoring, publishing and sharing material online as part of social practices (Bradley & Vigmo, 2013; Godhe, 2014). This also points to an increased focus on collaborative dimensions of learning that depart from interests in learning as part of human social practices (Säljö, 2010; Ludvigsen, Lund, Rasmussen & Säljö, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). As a consequence of learning about digital media as contextual and not being neutral, it follows that learners’ engagement can be seen as part of “cultural forms”. Websites are designed according to certain “rhetorics” that can for example offer opportunities to link to other sites, to navigate in special ways, and offer various ways of user interaction (Buckingham, 2006, p. 265). Similarly, from a sociological perspective, Selwyn (2011) points to the over optimistic expectations, or “technoromantic” views of what technologies per se will add to a learning situation, and argues there is cause to adopt a more critical stance towards the uses of technology in educational contexts. The critique is directed towards a general rhetoric not departing from realistic uses of technology in practice. In the above sections we have displayed how pedagogical issues have been conceptualised to indicate some of the argued transforming conditions for teaching and learning, contextualised as social and collaborative activities. The next section discusses pedagogical rationales as they are framed in research on OER, in particular in relation to language teaching and learning. Focused studies on OER in language learning and teaching We now turn to some recent empirical studies to illustrate findings of OER research in language learning and teaching. Though sharing and reuse can be argued to have been part of previous practices, the creation and sharing, and reuse of activities can now be done much more easily under different conditions with web resources. In spite of this, OER have not been widely adopted by teachers and the reuse and sharing have not been visible enough for teachers, indicating difficulties with access, and therefore leading to a low uptake (Beaven, 2013). LORO2 was developed as a resource with the aim of creating a repository for language learning and teaching online and from a distance, with over 700 resources for six languages (Beaven, Comas-Quinn & Sawhill, 2013; Comas-Quinn & Fitzgerald, 2013). Findings from studying LORO indicated that the repository was used for finding resources, for inspiration and for ensuring a more standardised teaching practice. Furthermore, it was found that time for development of teaching practices, an increase in their confidence, the appreciation of having colleagues’ feedback on own uploaded resources and increased quality of teaching material, were of importance, as teachers would prepare and choose their best work for sharing (Comas-Quinn & Fitzgerald, 2013). Of particular interest was that pedagogy is “embodied in the open resources available” and that this, according to the language teachers led to “experimentation, collaboration and discussion” (ComasQuinn & Fitzgerald, 2013, p. 5). In a study with the intention of combining an interactionist perspective on learning with a constructivist one, language learning was explored as “working ‘with’ language” (Dixon & Hondo, 2013, p. 111). This descriptive study involved an online resource for learning German, Deutsch Interaktiv, framed as a self-paced resource offered for free. This online resource is described as a programme, mainly addressing receptive language learning activities, that is listening and reading, thus lacking social aspects of language in use. Regarding notions of OER, the perspective taken in this study was the re-purposing of an online programme as an OER (Dixon & Hondo, 2013). Openness in this study can be interpreted as open for integration of resources, rather than resources being open in the sense implied in the 5R framework. The iTILT project (interactive Technologies in Language Teaching) was investigated as an OER that focused on the use of interactive whiteboards to encourage communication among language learners together with their teachers who participated in training during a year (Whyte, Cutrim Schmid, van Hazebrouck Thompson & Oberhofer, 2014). To investigate practices from an action research perspective with 40 language teachers from classrooms in seven European countries, more than 200 short videos were captured. Together with other training materials with comments, the video clips were made available online. The aim was to investigate how OER can enhance open practices in particular together with interactive whiteboards (Whyte et al., 2014). Based on findings from previous research, teachers indicate several foci for continued development of the OER field; quality assurance as one aspect linked to teacher education, pedagogical issues and teachers’ continued development (Whyte et al., 2014). To summarise, the studies presented serve to exemplify how development and research have addressed teaching practices, and explorations of resources in various teaching and learning contexts. The research studies presented, demonstrate that some have adopted an evident pedagogical framing, situating the uses of OER in an already developed structure aimed at teaching and learning a language. The aims of these studies were to integrate present structures, but also develop and extend the teaching and learning space by including other resources and links. Methodological approach This section describes the data collected. Further, it displays the context, and how the analytical processes were performed. The study is based on teachers’ online postings and uploaded OER in, the largest Swedish repository of OER with over 230 000 members, a majority being teachers since affiliation to a school is among the prerequisites for membership. The repository hosts a vast number of OER, approximately 27 000, representing all school subjects and levels. The present study focuses on OER tagged by teachers either as Swedish as a Second Language (SAS) or Swedish for Immigrants (SFI). At the point of designing the web site in 2004, the original intentions from the creators were for teachers to easily connect with each other through an open educational space used lektion (lesson) instead of OER3. The name would symbolise an arena that teachers were used to in their daily practice. On the web, promotes itself as a database with learning and teaching materials produced by teachers for teachers; resources which can be accessed for free once being a member. On the site, it is declared that teachers will be able to access thousands of tips and ideas for teaching (translation from Swedish). Apart from OER, there are also other resources available such as a teacher forum enabling social and collegial exchange, available job positions and an archive with a selection of links and services for teachers. The data consisted of posted OER during a delimited time period of three months from March to May 2015. In total, 40 OER were shared under the two selected subjects, Swedish as a Second Language and Swedish for Immigrants, covering the levels from Swedish primary to upper secondary level. These OER were posted by 17 teachers, of which a majority only shared one OER, while the most active teacher shared 8 contributions. Further, interviews were made with participating teachers around the conditions of sharing in order to increase the understanding of teachers’ engagement in sharing. All 17 teachers were contacted through the mailing tool in and six volunteered to be interviewed. They were asked five open ended questions regarding frequency in posting, reasons for posting, how the site was situated in their teaching, their reasoning about why few teachers post OER, and other online resources they used. The five questions were: 1) How often do you contribute by posting on 2) Why do you contribute by posting on 3) How do you use in your teaching? 4) There are many registered teachers on but only few contribute by posting; what do you think are the reasons for that? 5) What are some other online platforms you use in your work? Through scrutinising specific areas within language learning, that is the examples of Swedish as a Second Language and Swedish for Immigrants, a delimited representation was offered of the OER posted on The aim was to illustrate and exemplify a restricted number of OER with concrete examples to enable an in-depth qualitative analytical perspective regarding teachers’ pedagogical design, and potential affordances and constraints of sharing OER in the context of Multiple rounds of analysis of OER were carried out to address the nature of the OER teachers uploaded. When submitting an OER to, tagging is requested. There are a number of pre-selected OER type options for the contributors to choose from in a drop-down list in alphabetical order in Swedish such as assignment, article, discussion points, own research, help to students, group work. However, it is also possible to enter a new key phrase if any of these types should not apply to the OER in question. Further, according to the repository instructions, each posted OER should be provided with a description of what it is about and how the OER has been used, by entering information in a text field. This design enables the teachers to get an idea about the material before downloading. The system accepts most file types; uploaded files are, however, automatically converted into .pdf files. The incentive behind this procedure is that most people can open this file format (, instruction video for teachers). However, assuming that not all teachers are aware of this, there may be some constraints regarding editing, like revising and remixing according to Wiley’s (2014) framework. The OER in are constituted by information on the start page of the OER; Author (Författare), Date (Datum), Subjects (Ämnen), Level (År), Lesson type (Lektionstyp) as well as the description of the learning description (Beskrivning). On the top right, there is a link for downloading the OER lesson (Ladda ner lektionsfil ). Figure 1: The interface displayed on the start page of the OER How does it smell? (Hur luktar det?), when clicking on an OER link where the information about the OER is presented. The description (Beskrivning) is highlighted with the red square in the left column. (See Table 1, Level 2 with a translation of the description into English). Concerning the social media dimension (Figure 1) this particular OER has received 4 likes. This feature also becomes visible when searching among “Popular lessons”, which provides the most liked OER at the top of the list displayed as a result of a search. All 40 OER had likes (thumbs up) from other participants for the OER. 12 had 1–9 likes, 20 had 10–19 likes, and 8 had between 20 and 50 likes. Due to lack of teachers discussions connected to the OER selected for our study, this feature is not within the scope of the study. This could be a limitation, since no data was possible to retrieve to address the research questions. Further, our data did not include the number of downloads made for each lesson since they were regarded as not contributing to the interests of the present study. The combination of reading the instruction on the start page of the OER and then downloading the OER lesson provides an interested teacher with information of the intended application of the OER. Figure 2 shows the downloaded OER lesson from Figure 1 of choosing the right smell connected to the drawn images. Analysis and results We categorised the OER provided by the teachers, from the point of view of descriptions of the learning description for the OER (see red square around Beskrivning in Figure 1) and the chosen OER type. The descriptions were scrutinised in-depth together with investigations of the pedagogical design of the OER activity. Further, the results of the interviews are discussed. Scrutinising pedagogical descriptions In the instructions required by concerning sharing and uploading OER, teachers were asked to describe “how the lesson has been used and what it is about” (translated from Swedish). In other words, the only instructions given to the teachers indicate focusing on the application of the OER in a learning context, together with attributed information about the objective of learning. Investigating and analysing the teachers’ descriptions, resulted in OER ranging from providing basic information to expanding on formulations to assist others in their potential reuse of the OER. Analytically, we identified three levels of descriptions for the OER, (see Table 1). These descriptions were also scrutinised concerning if or how they were related to other qualities of open other than reuse, as described by Wiley (2014). The 5Rs were used to investigate whether the teachers’ design could indicate affordances and constraints in the sharing of OER in this particular repository and what was found as characteristic of the teachers’ pedagogical design of their OER. Intended learning outcomes A short work task where pupils get words dealing with smell. The pupils should also pair the right word with the right image. SAS and possibly SFI. Let the dice Each student will get a piece of paper They get to practice vocabulary, decide! The with 6 squares. In each square there concord and prepositions. The students will let the are six numbered alternatives. They more advanced students can dice decide what choose environment with the dice. They write a story based on the an image will look google images of objects that the dice twisted picture. They also like. gives them. Then they draw the images practice fine motor ability by on the paper, color them, and cut them elaborating a bit. There are out. After that, they describe their image many suggestions of how to orally or in text. Target group: SAS. collaborate, practicing classroom language. Table 1 displays three examples of OER with different levels of description. They are becoming more and more elaborate, from providing a learning context only (Level 1), to providing a learning context and learning instruction (Level 2), and finally providing learning context, learning instruction and intended learning outcomes (Level 3). The examples under each level were translated from Swedish (Level 2 in the table is displayed in Figure 1, description (Beskrivning). In Level 1, only the Learning context is provided. In the example in Table 1, the teacher has introduced the activity as Analysing a debate article and nothing more (OER posted 6 May, 2015). Thus, the description to this exercise is neither giving any guide to other teachers nor opening for other ways of appropriating the OER. This approach in describing the activity and learning context was the most prominent among the 40 analysed OER, 19 belonging to this category (see Figure 4 below, which is attributed to Level 1). In Level 2, the Learning context is complemented with a Learning instruction (see Table 1). This particular example introduces an OER with the Learning context that “A paper with pictures of images which smell differently” (OER posted 27 May, 2015). The following Learning instructions accompany the Learning context with suggestions of how to apply the OER in the classroom “A short work task etc. . . etc”. Writing a Learning instruction together with providing a Learning context was represented by 10 out of the 40 posted OER. The third example, Level 3, illustrates a more elaborated approach providing Learning context, Learning instruction and Intended learning outcomes (See Table 1). The Learning context to the OER Let the dice decide! (OER posted 20 May, 2015), opens up for ways of using the OER. Further, Learning instructions describe the activity in detail, in terms of suggested procedures in the classroom. Also, this example specifically mentions learning as situated in a classroom, i.e. also providing intended learning outcomes. 11 of the 40 analysed OER were identified as Level 3, a more elaborated pedagogical framing by the teachers. Concerning the OER types, the most common representation and visualisation was text in combination with images or fill-in exercises. 14 were pure text, 2 were videos and 2 PPT presentations. Categorising the OER types in each of the 40 OER, the learning activities were; speaking (12), writing (7), grammar (4), a combination of listening, reading and speaking (3), a combination of writing, speaking, reading (3), word practice (3), culture (3), reading—vowels (2), mathematical concepts in Swedish (2), language history (1). In sum, when teachers share a more elaborated description of the pedagogical activities with the downloaded OER activity: Learning context, Learning Instruction together with Intended learning outcome it facilitates for other teachers to use the OER. The analysis of the six interviewed teachers contributed to insights into the conditions around online sharing of open teaching and learning resources. The views of the respondents were quite uniform in terms of answers to the five questions identified in the interviews. Their reasoning contribute to shedding some light on issues that need further research. To the first question, dealing with frequency in posting, the outcomes of the interviews corroborate that there is a large number of members on the site although few are engaged in posting OER. Generally, teachers are periodically involved. However, one aspect raised by the respondents, who do share, is that teachers would like to give others the advantage they have had in obtaining materials themselves. To the second question of reasons for posting, the incentives for contributing are expressed in terms of the environment being a supportive one where teachers appreciate getting feedback and “likes” of work performed in an extended meeting space with colleagues also outside of the physical space at work. An opportunity to get response from others is a strong driving force by those who are active in sharing their resources. There is a notion that visualising what is done in a sharingculture is a positive thing. Another reason for posting is to share ideas with other teachers of what has worked in the classroom. This points to social and collegial dimensions of importance for contributing. Concerning the third question of how using the site is situated in teaching, it is used as a bank of ideas for teaching. Since the tool has a transparent search function when time is short between classes, this assists in finding some activities for teachers. Another answer given is that when lacking existing exercises within a certain area, it is possible to fill that gap by producing new exercises and then sharing, which the respondents do. To question four, reasoning about why few teachers post OER, lack of time or prioritising other non-digital dimensions of teaching is one major reason. Another reason stated is that teachers might be reluctant because they are uncertain about holding the right quality to be shared in an online environment. The common understanding is that teachers will become more collaborative if they just get past the threshold of being afraid of being critiqued. There is a lack of sharing culture as a phenomenon as expressed in this quote from one of the interviewees: “There is no sharing culture in our school; each and everyone is hiding in their office and refuses to show WHAT s/he is doing. I have ONE colleague that I know of who uses but I don’t think that she has shared anything yet. . . . but it’ll come :).” Finally, a more cynical side is the proprietor aspect, i.e. that teachers may be unwilling to share what they have invented. In the fifth and final question about other online collaborative resources used in teaching apart from, teachers mention other common digital channels such as social media and videosharing, e.g. Facebook and YouTube. Once the border is crossed of starting to post online, the respondents claim that it is much easier to continue, being more productive in sharing online. Discussion and conclusion In this study, we investigated what characterises teachers’ pedagogical design of OER in an open educational practice, exemplified by, a web resource for teachers for sharing and reuse of resources that are openly licensed. Our specific interest aimed at investigating a limited number of OER created and shared for Swedish as a Second Language and Swedish for Immigrants on this particular site. We drew on Wiley’s (2014) framework of OER to explore and demonstrate affordances and constraints in teachers’ pedagogical design in OER. With our analyses of OER, we suggest there are affordances with elaborated pedagogical framing of the OER on the site. A less elaborated pedagogical design can constrain other teachers’ uses of the OER since they would have little guidance in how to make use of the OER. The site has a structure for uploading and sharing a resource that requires certain information to be provided. In the analytical work, we found three levels of describing the OER, from short descriptions of Learning context to longer ones of Learning instructions and even Intended learning outcomes that opened up for other teachers to go beyond the twin concepts of share and reuse (see Beaven, 2013). Though we identified three levels in our data, there were few examples that were open for using and developing the OER in the way Wiley describes. This indicates that there are teachers, although few in our data set, who developed a more open pedagogical design in their descriptive and instructive comments to their OER. The name of the site lesson is normally associated to activities indicating an educational space and within a certain timeframe. As argued by Blythe (2014) and Pawlowski and Bick (2012) lesson plans can be shared as examples of didactic designs and experiences from lessons on a micro level. However, the lessons in the programme do not exclude learning online and distance, synchronous or asynchronous as other aspects of pedagogical design, though these are seldomly highlighted. The notion of lesson as essential to the rhetoric of the site, risks constraining the mindset of participating teachers. This connects to Buckingham’s (2006) notion of websites holding certain rhetoric in terms of what teachers are required to do for uploading and sharing. This can be seen as an example of the movement of OER still being on a descriptive and prescriptive level (Nikoi & Armellini, 2012). The automatic conversion to pdf-format in, can be a constraining aspect, since we can assume that quite a few teachers are less aware of how this format can be modified. The drawback of the decision to convert everything to .pdf could have been explained earlier on the site since it severely limits the usability of material beyond reuse as lesson plans (c.f. Wiley, Bliss & McEwen, 2014). There is little awareness and no consensus of the definitions of the concepts of OER and, thus, our findings also suggest that the participatory culture (Jenkins et al., 2006) is based on a restricted definition of OER, to state only sharing and reuse. Most teachers in our limited scope of 40 OER, shared only one resource, and the activities described were more traditionally framed and with a clear tendency for text-based OER. However, judging by the relatively high number of “likes” given to the investigated OER, this shows that participants on the site appreciated the OER. These results can also be interpreted as reflecting existing teacher practices, and that development of and uptake of OER should be seen as part of an inherently imperfect world (Selwyn, 2011). The need to balance over optimistic assumptions of what OER can add needs to be included in the discussion and further development of OER. The lack of awareness of the underlying intentions with an OER in this kind of open practice can become inhibiting, not for sharing as such perhaps, but for sharing OER that can be used by other teachers (and learners) as resources that can be further developed and re-contextualised, as in the 5R framework (Wiley, 2014). The teachers themselves mention fear of not reaching quality standards as one potential explanation for not sharing. The low number of contributing teachers may also reflect a general collegial approach, as one characterised by a non-sharing culture. The limited number of interviews should be interpreted with caution. It may, however, indicate that there are practitioners’ sharing cultures that exemplify the need for investigating qualities in OER for language learning and language teaching. Moreover, it can be argued to exemplify teachers’ critical stance and caution towards over optimistic expectations of technology (Selwyn, 2011) as an actor of change. Though presenting findings from a limited case study, we argue that the contribution to the research within OER and language learning and teaching align with previous calls for more research on pedagogy and design and the role of OER (Knox, 2013). The results from the case study presented here, brings to the fore that there is a need to make explicit the pedagogical rationale underpinning the uses of OER to teachers, to enable development of OER beyond reuse. Besides defining the concept OER and what they imply for teaching practices, a repository needs to include features that support more diverse contribution but also continue to address and further develop quality aspects. This research was conducted within University of Gothenburg, The Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction and Mediated Communication in Contemporary Society (LinCS), a national centre of excellence funded by the Swedish research council. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Web Strategies for the Curation and Discovery of Open Educational Resources Vivien Rolfe University of the West of England (United Kingdom) For those receiving funding from the UK HEFCE-funded Open Educational Resource Programme (2009– 2012), the sustainability of project outputs was one of a number of essential goals. Our approach for the hosting and distribution of health and life science open educational resources (OER) was based on the utilisation of the blogging platform and search engine optimisation (SEO) techniques to curate content and widen discovery. This paper outlines the approaches taken and tools used at the time, and reflects upon the effectiveness of web strategies several years post-funding. The paper concludes that using as a platform for sharing and curating OER, and the adoption of a pragmatic approach to SEO, offers cheap and simple ways for small-scale open education projects to be effective and sustainable. Keywords: Open educational resources; OER curation; OER discovery; OER sustainability; Reuse; Search engine optimisation; SEO The HEFCE-funded Open Educational Resources (OER) Programme ran in the UK from 2009 to 2012 and was managed by Jisc and the Higher Education Academy (HEA), with around £12.5 million invested across three rounds of activity (Jisc, 2015a). The HEA discipline subject centres led 25 projects, and 65 were managed by individuals and Higher Education institutions. In reality, the involvement across the further- and higher education sector was beyond that, with multiple institutions and groups participating in the subject centre activity and as project partners. The pilot phase focused on boosting OER creation skills and release, and the later phases aimed to further embed open practice in institutions. The UK OER programme (UKOER) was part of a global movement of investment in open education innovation provided by charitable foundations and governments, and a parallel tranche of activity has produced guidelines and policy to support OER development at local level (Stacey, 2013). To date, there have been few examinations of the activity and impact of UKOER projects in the intervening years, and whether the diverse strategies for creating and sharing OER were effective? The adoption of sustainable approaches was an important part of the funding criteria, in order to “get the best value from the work that has been funded” and to provide longevity and “options for sustainability after funding ceases” (UKOER Phase 3 Call – Jisc, 2015b). The ambitions of the projects were varied in order to sustain their efforts, from changing institutional policy, establishing intellectual property guidelines and open licensing policy, involving students and other partners in co-creation, and/or integrating OER in curricula. One of the advantages of this programme was oversight of the technological standards by the Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS). They encouraged an open approach to the use of technology that was very much driven by the OER community rather than imposed upon them (Thomas, Campbell, Barker COL – RETRIDAL Workshop on Quality Assurance in Higher Education for the Gambia [Banjul – Gambia] International Conference on Accreditation, Quality Assurance and Recognition of Qualification in Africa [Nairobi – Kenya] National Workshop Quality Assurance Mechanism in Single and Dual Mode Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria 6 [Lagos – Nigeria] Regional Training Workshop on “Quality Assurance Mechanism for ODL Programmes” [Accra – Ghana] Validation Workshop on Quality Assurance Framework for Higher Education in the Gambia [Banjul – Gambia] Capacity Building Workshop in Flexible and Blended Approaches to Skills Development for TVET Institutional Heads [Lagos – Nigeria] COL – RETRIDAL Workshop on e-content Development for e-learning Project Implementation for the Open University of Tanzania [Bagamoyo – Tanzania] E-learning Initiatives in Sierra Leone Higher Education Institutions [Freetown – Sierra Leone] E-learning workshop in Ghana [Accra – Ghana] Instructional Design for Distance Education [Lagos – Nigeria] May-05 National Workshop on Instructional System Design, Content Development and Evaluation for ODL [Abuja – Nigeria] Regional Workshop on e-learning in Open and Distance Learning system [Lagos – Nigeria] RETRIDAL – COL sub-Regional Workshop on e-learning strategy and Implementation Models [Yaoundé – Cameroon] Date Participants Train-the-Trainers Workshop on Instructional Design and Instructional Multi-media Design [Lagos – Nigeria] Workshop on Instructional System Design Development and Evaluation for Open and Distance Learning [Lagos – Nigeria] Workshop on Wiki-educator for staff of NOUN for Online Content Development [Lagos – Nigeria] Dual Mode Induction for Katsina State University [Katsina – Induction Workshop for Kaduna Campus and Abuja Office Induction Workshop for NOUN Senior Staff [Lagos – Nigeria] Jan-05 Regional Workshop on Developing and Writing Fundable Research Proposals [Accra – Ghana] Research Development in the Gambia [Banjul – Gambia] Training Workshop ODL Research Methods & Tools for Academic Staff of NOUN [Lagos – Nigeria] Date Participants First Sub-Regional Stakeholders Meeting [Lagos – Nigeria] Distance Learning Dual Mode Delivery System [Lagos – National Workshop on Tutoring and Management of Feedback Feb-12 in ODL [Abuja – Nigeria] RETRIDAL – COL Workshop on Effective Learner Support Systems in Open and Distance Learning [Lagos – Nigeria] Date Note: * Local workshops are restricted to a single institution Workshops organised outside the West African sub region are at the request of the host institution. Workshops in the same category are often repeated for different categories of participants. Participants are expected to replicate the training in their own institutions with monitoring and mentoring from RETRIDAL. The impact of this is to be evaluated in a later study. All workshops are evaluated using oral interviews and questionnaires to determine their efficacy and tweak future workshops. Workshops are at no cost to the participants. RETRIDAL has also sponsored researches through the Commonwealth of Learning, which are focused on aspects of Open and Distance Learning. These include: RETRIDAL and ODL’s Future in West Africa From the foregoing, RETRIDAL is undoubtedly the epicentre of ODL capacity building in the West African sub-region. All indices point to the pivotal role of the ODL systems as the panacea for mass education in Nigeria and in West Africa. Amini and Ndunagu (2014) painted a graphic picture of the usefulness of the ODL system in meeting the Education for All (EFA) developmental goals in Nigeria and in Africa. However, this requires building the capacity of relevant manpower to effectively manage the ODL systems in order to achieve these important goals. The question is how much impact RETRIDAL will make in the region given its efforts and what the effects of RETRIDAL’s capacity building initiatives will be. It can be argued that the activities of RETRIDAL in West Africa are leading higher education institutions to properly utilise the concept and practice of Open and Distance Learning. Some universities in Nigeria are in their various stages of going dual mode: The Workshop on Tutoring and Management of Feedback in ODL held at Abuja, Nigeria on February 2012 was especially encouraging for Universities like Port Harcourt and Modibbo Adama, who have set up a Directorate for Distance and e-Learning in their respective institutions as a direct result of the training. RETRIDAL has enhanced the true meaning and practice of the ODL system, which is vastly different from the practice of part-time programmes in most universities in Nigeria. Outside the shores of Nigeria, the University of Ghana, Legon, the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, have indicated interest in streamlining their ODL system to conform to international best practices. The Gambia Distance Learning draft policy was midwifed by COL through RETRIDAL. It may not be easy to assess the success of the implementation of that policy as Gambia has pulled out of the Commonwealth. All these are evidences of RETRIDAL’s effort at capacity building for ODL in the Region. The future indeed is bright for ODL fruition in the sub-region. With the National Open University of Nigeria graduating students in large numbers every year, there is a surge in students demand for admission. That means more hands are needed to handle various aspects of ODL administration and faculty delivery. Therein lies the central role of RETRIDAL –an institution for training and research in Open and Distance Learning. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Teaching Project Management on-line: lessons learned from MOOCs Rita Falcao & Luis Fernandes Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal) & Creating a course for teaching project management online in a full online distance-learning environment was a challenge. Working with adult learners from different continents that want to complete a Master degree was an additional challenge. This paper describes how different MOOCs were used to learn about teaching -(meta) e-learning. MOOCs provide diverse opportunities for teachers to learn and innovate in e-learning. From the analysis of 5 MOOCs in the broad field of project management we took important lessons on how to structure contents, how to prepare complex assignments and, the most important lesson of all, how to help students to learn. This paper describes our journey of learning from MOOCs how to be better online teachers. Keywords: Problem based learning; e-learning; MOOCs; student-centered learning Introduction to the challenge Universidade NOVA de Lisboa has a fully online Master Degree on managing e-Learning Systems. Most students are adult learners, coming from different parts of the world, mostly from Portuguese speaking countries. In the 2015 edition, the programme was re-organized and a new teaching team was assigned to the course “Education Projects Management”. The new teaching team, the authors of this paper, was given complete autonomy to restructure the course around the following Learning Outcomes (LOs): The student will be able to identify and understand basic concepts and structure of project management in the educational context; The student will be able to apply tools and techniques to develop an educational project, from idea generation to finalization; The student will be able to understand the specificities of project management in the context of e-learning; The student will be able to identify, group and organize information structures hierarchically, as well as to develop communication objects developed to disseminate information; The student will get to know alternative approaches to project management, in particular design thinking. Project management is a useful transferable skill that learners can apply to their learning activities, their profession and their personal life. Managing projects can be a very exciting and stimulating job. However, learning about project management can be exactly the opposite: too technical and bland. Students in this programme have different backgrounds and goals for the future. What they have in common is that they are adult learners, and even though they consider project management as a useful skill and an important tool, it is not their main interest. In this context, the challenge we faced was mostly related with motivation: how do we teach project management online, in an international context, in a way that is engaging and rewarding to the learners and to the teachers? Some of the more specific questions we were facing were: What is the best approach to teach a fully online course in project management? What is the right balance between theory, knowledge and practical work? How to make learning interesting and engaging but not overwhelming to the students? How to support students so that they don’t fall behind or drop the course? From the interpretation of the online learning continuum (Guàrdia, Maina, & Sangrà, 2013), in the far right end we can find MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), classified as fully online distributed learning, with complex and integrated use of ICT. Even though our goal was not to build a MOOC, we wanted to build a fully online course that uses technology in an integrated way, to deliver learning opportunities and to support students in their learning journey. For these reasons, we went to look for answers to our questions in existing courses, mainly in MOOCs. This paper focuses on the lessons learned from analyzing different MOOCs in the area of project management. We consider this as being an innovative practice and perspective. MOOCs can be a tool for “Massive Learning”, not only for students that want to learn about a topic but also for teachers and trainers that want to learn about how to develop and deliver online learning. We can say it is a type of meta-(e)Learning, as we are learning about e-learning through e-learning in practice. Initial research and adopted pedagogical approach With the challenge described above, we aimed at finding a student-centered approach to teaching project management that was useful and meaningful to each student and took advantage of their experiences. Most of our students are adult learners and we wanted to take advantage of their different backgrounds to build an enriching experience for all. Given the nature of the course, we decided to adopt a problem based-learning approach (PBL) that allowed students to learn about project management, while doing a project—learning by doing. As described by Barrows and Tamblyn (1980), PBL is the ideal approach when you want studentcentered individualized learning that promotes both the acquisition of knowledge related with the problem and the development and application of specific skills. This facilitates the integration of knowledge and skills that students use to solving that problem. Another important aspect was that the projects should be realistic and relevant for the students, instead of being chosen by the teachers. This was, in our opinion a crucial factor to get students engaged with the work and be able to reuse the process when trying to solve new problems. The four goals of PBL as described by Barrows (1986) and adapted by Biggs (2007), are: G1: Structuring knowledge for use in working contexts G2: Developing effective reasoning processes G3: Developing self-directed learning skills G4: Increased motivation for learning G5: Developing group skills, working with colleagues. These goals are aligned with our idea for the course. We consider project management a set of transferable skills that students should be able to take to professional lives and apply them in different situations (G1). Project management is based on a structured process of making decisions and acting accordingly, i.e. effective reasoning (G2). Our view for the course was that students should learn-by-doing, taking hold of their learning, deciding every aspect of the project (G3). Motivation was the most challenging aspect of learning about project management. Using a PBL approach, with a strong a relevant practical component was the solution for this problem (G4). Finally, being a full online course with an international cohort of students, developing collaboration skills and networking is a desirable goal (G5). PBL provided us with the theoretical framework and pedagogical approach. But we needed to define the practical approach and tools for developing the course. We adopted the 7Cs of Learning Design (Conole, 2014) as an instrument to guide us in the design and development of the course. The framework consists of seven stages: 1. Conceptualize 2. Capture 3. Create 4. Communicate 5. Collaborate 6. Consider 7. Consolidate The first stage, conceptualize, was in part addressed above. We described the background, the target audience, the LOs and the pedagogical approach. Still, we needed to go deeper in the conceptualize stage. Our strategy was to research what was being done in e-learning in terms of project management. As stated above, in the online learning continuum (Guàrdia et al., 2013) MOOCs are at the far end, representing distance learning solutions fully online, highly dependent on ICT. These three features were the same as our course. Given the proliferation of MOOCs in the last few years, their openness, availability and diversity it was a logical decision to use them as a source for inspiration about teaching project management online but, most of all, MOOCs represent an opportunity for learning empirically about e-learning strategies, the “(meta)e-learning”. This option was reinforced by literature. Guàrdia et al. (2013) have identified ten design principles for MOOCs from the learner perspective: 1. Competence based approach 2. Learner empowerment 3. Learning plan and clear orientations 4. Collaborative learning 5. Social networking 6. Peer assistance 7. Quality criteria for knowledge creation and generation 8. Interest groups 9. Assessment and peer feedback These ten principles are aligned with our vision for the course, focusing on student-centred learning, networking, collaboration, competence based learning and students as producers of knowledge. So, for the conceptualize stage of the 7Cs, authors researched courses in the field of project management in the main MOOC providers: Coursera and EdX. The first step was to analyse courses addressing project management. We selected three courses: “Project Management: The Basics for Success” by University of California in Coursera (University of California, n.d.); “Introducción a la Gestión de Proyectos” by UPValencia in EdX (UPValenciax, 2015); “Introduction to Project Management” by AdelaideX in EdX (AdelaideX, 2016). These courses followed a similar structure both in terms of contents and teaching/learning activities: These courses are clearly xMOOCs, MOOCs with a teacher and content-centered approach (Conole, 2015; Guàrdia et al., 2013; Lugton, 2012). They focused on providing knowledge about each stage of project management. There was no alignment with the PBL model that we were looking for, nor with the 10 design principles for MOOCs listed above. Still, these MOOCs were useful in terms of providing an overview on contents in project management: idea, planning, risk analysis and evaluation. Still, we wanted to have an approach that was more engaging for the learners and teachers. During our search, we came in contact with Design Thinking. Design thinking, as defined by Tim Brown from IDEO (2016) is “a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success”. It provides a creative and human-centered way to address challenges, problems or projects. IDEO has published a toolkit with a specific approach for using design thinking fin education (IDEO, 2012). There was a clear alignment between our vision for the course and the design thinking approach: the focus on the challenge; use of technology; people-centered; collaboration. We went back to the MOOC providers and analyzed two MOOCs in the field of design thinking. The two courses analyzed were cMOOCs, MOOCs with a focus on the student and building networks of collaboration (Conole, 2015; Lugton, 2012): Design Thinking for Innovation, by University of Virginia (Coursera) Product Design: The Delft Design Approach (EdX) In terms of collaboration, the course includes different fora and study groups where students interact with each other and with mentors. Summarizing, the main lessons learned from this MOOC were as follows: Structuring the course around questions Using short videos with different perspectives of the same content/issue Providing useful tools that students can take away with them to apply in other contexts Robust guidance for completing the course Networking and collaboration opportunities The first MOOC is a very interesting course in terms of the way the lessons are structured: Modules are built around questions Video(s) introducing the module with general contents and concepts Video(s) with case-studies related with the module content, including interviews with professionals in the field Video(s) focusing on one specific approach or tool of the design-thinking framework Introducing the content in general terms gives the student the global perspective. Then, providing the “real-world” perspective of the same module, with concrete experiences narrated with people involved in the case. Finally, going back to the theory but focusing on practical tools or instruments that the students can use in different contexts. In terms of assessment, this MOOC only has one assignment: an individual reflection by the student, assessed by peers. Even though the assessment is open, the MOOC provides several support tools to help students in completing the assignment and peer reviewing: Clear instructions about what is expected from each role Assessment rubric with instructions for applying and scoring Example of the completed assignment Peer-review practice quiz “Product Design: The Delft Design Approach” (TU Delft Online Learning, 2015), provides important insights in terms of structuring the course, interacting with students and problem-based assessment. The general course framework, the way the lessons are structured, how the assignments are introduced, all of these contribute to helping students engage with the course materials and activities. The course has 7 modules with a similar structure. Introduction video that reviews the work of the previous module and introduces the new work Two or more short lectures in video Quizzes to control the learning of the module Exercises with clear and complete description of what the student is expected to do Templates for the exercises to guide the student Benchmark videos that document “model” students completing the exercises, so the student can compare their work Example of completed exercises Videos with experts related with the module Videos with reflections about the assignments This MOOC has a strong social and collaborative component. Students use the discussion fora to publish and review their work and their colleagues’ work. The course uses social networks for helping creating a community. The main lesson retrieved from this MOOC is the importance of supporting and guiding students in online distance learning. The MOOC includes several strategies with this sole purpose. Lectures were very short videos, with no more than 7 minutes. These small chunks of information make it easy for the student to keep attentive. Following every lecture, there was a quiz, so that the student could check their learning. Another interesting strategy was having two “model” students that had go through the course and complete every task. These students are always present through videos and they interact with the camera in a very informal way to create empathy with the learner. The delivery of the assignments is also student-centered. Every assignment includes very clear and complete instructions of the tasks the student has to accomplish. Well-structured templates are provided to facilitate and guide the students. They can watch the “model” students going through the whole process of completing the assignment. Experts provide insights about the topic of the week and give real world context about the work that is being done. Every week, the teaching team prepares a video with reflections about some of the issues raised in the weekly forum. Another interesting aspect is that weekly assignments build on the assignment of the previous week. Using this strategy, at the end of the course, students have a complete project implemented step-by-step and did not feel overwhelmed by a big task or demotivated by completing small erratic tasks. All these strategies represent a great amount of work and a huge effort on planning and producing resources. But it provides a structured support to the student that is a crucial aspect in MOOCs and in other distance learning contexts. Table 1 summarizes the analysis of the five MOOCs in the framework the 10 design principles listed above (Guàrdia et al., 2013), using “y” for compliance and “n” for non-compliance. Competence based approach Learning plan and clear orientations Assessment and peer feedback Media-technology-enhanced learning From table 1 it is clear that the two last MOOCs analyzed have a stronger and more solid design. They provided the most valuable lessons to the authors. Implementing the lessons learned After the conceptualization stage of the 7Cs of Learning Design, we proceeded to the next: capture, create, communicate and collaborate. These consist in defining the practical approach to the course. The first step was to define the content of the course (capture and create). We decided to have weekly modules, each built around one question related with project management. We were trying to make students understand, right from the start, the relevance of what they were learning: 1. Where to start? (Idea) 2. Who cares about my project? (Stakeholders) 3. What has to be done and when? (Planning and scheduling) 4. Who will do what? (Project team) 5. What types of education resources should I include? (Content development) 6. How users access contents? (Information architecture) 7. How much will it cost? (Budget) 8. What problems should I expect? (Risk analysis) 9. Did it go well? (Evaluation) In terms of general structure of the course, we wanted to provide as much help to the students as possible, to keep them interested, motivated and avoiding getting overwhelmed by the course. We decided that every module should have the same structure and follow the same weekly calendar. We wanted students to know, from start, what to expect from us and what was going to be expected from them. In terms of structure, every module had the following components: Another important issue was the balance between the theoretical and practical components. We wanted students to feel that what they were learning was relevant to them. Working with adult learners, relevance is an important issue (Newman & Peile, 2002). Also, we wanted students to contribute with their experiences and making the course more enriching to all. Assignments are a great opportunity to achieve this. The strategy adopted was to have a small weekly assignment, linked to the theme of the module. In the first week they worked on the idea using a mind-mapping tool. On the second week, they identified stakeholders, defined priorities and analyzed their needs. The same strategy was used for the following weeks. At the end of the course students completed a full project, decided by them in every aspect, according to their ideas and interests. At the end, students had two weeks to review the project and present it in a single integrated document. As the assignments were aligned with course content, this final step was important to integrate the new knowledge (Consider and Consolidate). A final issue of the course was the final exam that was compulsory for every course of the Master. As our course has a strong practical component, we decided to follow the same line and do a casestudy analysis focusing in critical aspects of project management. There was an intentional alignment between the exam and the weekly modules and assignments to increase the consistency of the course (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001). Collaborate and Communicate were the “Cs” where there was less investment. It is intended to improve these two missing Cs in the next edition. Designing a e-learning course from scratch is an opportunity to innovate and learn. MOOCs are learning tools for learners to acquire knowledge and competences in different areas. But MOOCs create opportunities to “learn by example” how to teach in innovative ways, to (meta)e-learn. We have available courses from universities around the world, with different views, different strategies with different teams. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn about learning, teaching, assessing, motivating and engaging students. In the course “Education Projects Management” we invested in analyzing these five MOOCs and it was an important step that helped us to define the strategy for the course. As a result, students were engaged and motivated and only two students of a total of twenty-two did not complete the course (one of them never logged on). All the others completed the 14 assignments on time, as requested. Feedback from students was very positive and the results of the final exam were coherent with their performance during the semester. The main lesson learned from MOOCs was the importance of having a well-structured guidance system that facilitates and supports learning. Making the learning process easy for the students does not mean lowering the standard. It means putting the student at the center, creating a supportive and transparent learning environment where students know, at all times, what is expected from them and what to expect from us. It is not an easy task and it requires thorough planning, thinking ahead and a lot of work. We were not able to implement every detail of our strategy but next year we will do better and the year after that one, we will do even better. Learning about teaching is a never-ending process. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Book review of Minds Online: Teaching effectively with technology Minds Online: Teaching effectively with technology, Michelle Miller, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014, 296 pages, ISBN: 978-0674368-24-8. Reviewed by: Nathan Sand Boise State University (USA) As online learning continues to flourish, educators and institutions frequently question how to leverage emerging technologies in a way that effectively enhances the learning process for students. In Minds Online, Miller (2014) suggests that we already have an answer to this question—we just need to know where to look. Reflecting on basic fundamentals found in cognitive psychology, the author advocates a provocative approach: We need to align our teaching with the way the mind works. To show how this alignment is possible, Miller first combs through decades of psychology research, disentangling complex strands of knowledge to present a clearly defined overview of what we already know about the mind. She then puts this knowledge into practice, outlining and demonstrating practical strategies that can easily be incorporated into any online classroom to help enhance the learning process. One of the best features of this book is its accessibility. Even though the discussion largely focuses on dense studies in psychology, Miller takes the time to clarify obscure details as well as dispel common myths about technology’s impact on the mind and education. For instance, although Nicholas Carr’s bestseller, The Shallows, raises serious concerns over how technology may be rewiring our brains, Miller cautions us to avoid misinterpreting this idea. “Technically speaking,” she explains, “computing experience does alter our brains at a neural level, but so does just about anything else that we remember” (p. 45). For this reason, educators should not feel worried or threatened by technology’s role in education. Rather, they should embrace emerging technologies and test out innovative ways they can “amplify and expand the repertoire of techniques” (p. xii) within their own classroom. With this reassuring tone, Miller declares technology to be a powerful tool for education, as long as used effectively. In Minds Online, Miller attempts to illustrate the underlying connections between teaching and cognitive psychology mainly through the analysis of three processes: attention, memory, and thinking. The author first explores the components’ relevance in psychology and then more clearly identifies how and why each is a significant and unique factor within the online classroom. Take attention and memory, for example, which is essentially our ability to focus on and then reproduce information. Miller points out that when we make simple changes, like eliminating in-class lectures commonly found in face-to-face courses, it “lets us redirect student time into the active, focused effort that makes material stick” (p. 106). Similarly, she notes how the online classroom is ideal for fostering higher levels of thinking, in terms of creativity, formal reasoning, decision-making, and problem solving. She explains that in virtual classes, as compared to on-site face-to-face environments, “it’s more feasible to offer multiple practice opportunities—case studies, argument analyses, and many more variations” (p. 135) which supports “intellectual habits like critical thinking” (p. 136). Although overly simplified, it’s this continual blending of psychological theory with educational application that helps Miller to demonstrate how minds learn differently within online environments. Time and again, Miller reiterates the notion that designers and instructors need to recognize and exercise their power to continually manipulate the online environment in unique and memorable ways to capture student attention and foster deeper levels of thinking. In fact, in the final chapter of Minds Online, Miller attempts to put this reasoning into practice by showcasing a syllabus and information for a cognitively optimized psychology course. Though the author does provide snapshots of recommendations for enhancing student motivation—“assess early and often” (p. 214)— attention—“ask students to respond” (p. 217)—and thinking—“use varied, realistic scenarios for reasoning” (p. 219), while also outlining potential assignments like creative thinking wikis, MiniQuest assignments, and discussion tasks, most of the information and advice is already rather commonplace within virtual classrooms. However, it might prove valuable for instructors completely new to online teaching, or those planning to convert an on-site course into an online course. Minds Online provides a very thorough yet readable account of what it means to both teach and learn online. Not only does Miller reveal many of the underlying connections between cognitive psychology and online education, she also reaffirms many of the ways in which technology has been and might continue to be used to both enhance and optimize the virtual classroom. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Book review of Developing Adaptive and Personalized Learning Environments Developing Adaptive and Personalized Learning Environments, Kinshuk, New York, NY: Routledge, 2016, 1st Ed. 182 Pages, ISBN: 978-1-138-01306-3. Reviewed by: Jason Ward Chelmsford High School, Chelmsford, Massachusetts (USA) Technology continues to offer expanding opportunities for learners to gain knowledge in any environment, with all manner of devices. With the growth of open learning environments, online learning, ubiquitous computing, and learning analytics, adaptive and personalized learning environments have the potential to optimize learning and collaboration. This promise comes with a complex set of challenges, and Kinshuk has written a thorough and well-structured book to walk instructional designers and instructors through many of the key factors to be considered. The book comprises four sections (a) an overview, (b) theoretical underpinnings of adaptive and personalized environments, (c) considerations for implementation, and (d) methods for evaluating and optimizing learning environments, with a look at directions for future research. Several key features make this useful both as a possible textbook, and as a reference manual for practitioners: reflection activities, tests for understanding, references for further reading, and links to useful resources. The structure provides a logical progression from foundations to theory to implementation and evaluation. The first chapter defines adaptation and personalization, the different levels of each that can be applied, and the benefits and limitations of adaptation and personalization. Chapter 2 outlines the concepts of adaptivity and personalization in the context of lifelong learning. In Chapter 3, Kinshuk defines context as referring to the physical environment, the mode of communication, the discipline of the content being learned, and the interaction between the learner and their device. Part Two highlights the theories that form the basis for adaptive and personalized learning environments, such as cognitive theory, learning styles, and the ways in which a learning environment can be structured to respond to the needs of the learner, based on a range of feedback. In Chapter 4, there is discussion of cognitive theory, and some of the key characteristics that affect a student’s capabilities and learning style. Kinshuk describes how a learning environment can gather data to create a cognitive trait model for each student, and use that information to make decisions about how and when to present a student with certain content. Chapter 5 deals with the ways in which a learning environment can present content. Examples include the decision to present text, audio, images, or video, based on the needs of any given scenario. The next two chapters deal with the different types of adaptation that can be applied to exploratory learning and mobile or ubiquitous learning. Students must be given the freedom to choose their own learning path and the format of the content that they wish to receive. However, in a completely open virtual environment, the sheer number of choices may be overwhelming. An effective learning environment will constrain the number of choices available. In mobile and ubiquitous environments, there are a number of ways in which a system can personalize the learning process. Ubiquitous computing offers the opportunity for students to have authentic learning experiences based on their location. Specific location-based lessons can be created and validated by instructors anywhere in the world, and students can be alerted to learning opportunities when they are nearby. The third section of the book focuses on implementation and practical considerations. Chapter 8 describes a model for implementing adaptive and personalized learning environments. In this section, Kinshuk outlines several principles that should be considered when implementing a system. A key concept here is that the system should empower the student to learn in the absence of an instructor, and the learning must be available at different levels, depending on the needs of the student. Chapter 9 deals with cognitive skills acquisition, using a method called cognitive apprenticeship, as well as the potential effectiveness of simulated environments. Chapter 10 deals with the concept of reusability in adaptive learning environments. Kinshuk describes the need for content repositories and the clear need for standardization, and at present, there are multiple formats and styles for packaging content. In Part 4, the book discusses various methods of validating learning environments, and looks to the future of adaptive and personalized learning. Chapter 11 outlines the evaluation principles that can be applied to both internal and external evaluation of adaptive and personalized learning environments. The evaluation process is presented as two essential questions: how does the environment impact student learning, and is the desired effect achieved? Chapter 12 describes the potential for adaptive and personalized learning environments in the future. As the power of mobile devices and the connectivity of wireless networks continues to expand, opportunities for authentic, context-based learning can be created. Advances in sensor technology will lead to further adaptation and personalization, as biophysical cues can trigger the system to adjust the pace or complexity of the content to match the student’s cognitive load. Kinshuk concludes with a description of a smart learning environment, an ecosystem of data, content, devices, and interaction among students and instructors. As technology and access continue to improve, and if adaptive and personalized learning systems gain wider adoption in a variety of learning contexts, there will be a need for guidelines to build effective environments. The explosive growth of online and blended education increases the Book review of Developing Adaptive and Personalized Learning Environments importance of systems that can assist students in the absence of a human instructor, and those same systems create value for instructors who face increased need for differentiated instruction online. Personalization and adaptation are critical to the future of distance and blended learning, as well as the emerging applications of mobile and ubiquitous learning. Kinshuk has provided a concise explanation of the key theories behind adaptive and personalized learning systems. He has also given many practical examples and recommendations for evaluating learning environments. Finally, he looks to the future, and considers the potential of mobile and ubiquitous computing, combined with the personalization and optimization that will be made possible by data mining and learning analytics. The book is structured in a logical progression of concepts, from the underlying theory, to implementation, to validation and future directions. Kinshuk presents the relevant theories and design considerations in a manner that make it accessible to educators, instructional designers, and programmers alike. This is not a step-by-step guide to building a personalized learning environment. Rather, the book provides a theoretical and practical framework for how an adaptive and personalized learning environment could be conceptualized, designed, and evaluated. The many learning activities and reflection questions would make this book suitable as a textbook. The well-designed structure and practical examples also make this a useful manual for the practitioner interested in personalized and adaptive environments. For anyone interested in adaptive and personalized learning environments, this book will serve as a valuable foundation and reference. There is a growing body of evidence that personalization and adaptation will be at the core of many educational technology developments in the immediate future. This book provides a comprehensive look at the concepts, challenges, and opportunities that are presented by personalized, adaptive learning environments. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Felix Kayode Olakulehin, National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), Nigeria Ayesha Perveen, Virtual University of Pakistan, Pakistan Nelson Piedra, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Ecuador Fernando Ramos, University of Aveiro, Portugal OPEN PRAXIS AdelaideX. ( 2016 ). Introduction to Project Management . Retrieved January 1 , 2016 , from https:// AdelaideX+Project101x+1T2016/info Anderson , L. W. , Krathwohl , D. R. , & Bloom , B. S . T. of educational objectives. ( 2001 ). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed) . New York; London : Longman. Barrows , H. S. ( 1986 ). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods . Medical Education , 20 ( 6 ), 481 - 486 . 2923 . 1986 .tb01386.x Barrows , H. S. & Tamblyn , R. M. ( 1980 ). Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education . Springer Publishing Company. Biggs , J. ( 2007 ). Teaching for Quality Learning at University Third Edition Teaching for Quality Learning at University . Higher Education, 9 , 165 - 203 . Retrieved from hk/datafiles/R131.pdf Conole , G. ( 2014 ). The 7Cs of Learning Design-A new approach to rethinking design practice . Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014 , 502 - 509 . Retrieved from Conole , G. ( 2015 ). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs . Revista de Educación a Distancia , 39. Retrieved from es/red/article/view/234221 Guàrdia , L. , Maina , M. , & Sangrà , A. ( 2013 ). MOOC Design Principles. A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner's Perspective . eLearning Papers, 33 (May), 1 - 6 . Retrieved from http:// 33 _4.pdf IDEO. ( 2012 ). Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit . Ideo, 1 , 94 . Retrieved from http:// IDEO. ( 2016 ). About IDEO . Retrieved from Lugton , M. ( 2012 , August 23 ). What is a MOOC? What are the different types of MOOC? xMOOCs and cMOOCs . Reflections . Retrieved from 2012 /08/ 23/what-is-a-mooc-what-are-the-different-types-of-mooc-xmoocs-and-cmoocs/ Newman , P. , & Peile , E. ( 2002 ). Valuing learners' experience and supporting further growth: educational models to help experienced adult learners in medicine . BMJ , 325 , 200. http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/bmj.325.7357.200 TU Delft Online Learning . ( 2015 ). Product Design: The Delft Design Approach. Retrieved January 1 , 2016 , from DelftX+DDA691x+3T2015/info University of California, I. (n.d.). Project Management: The Basics for Success . Retrieved January 1 , 2015 , from UPValenciax. ( 2015 ). Introducción a la Gestión de Proyectos . Retrieved from https://courses.edx. org/courses/course-v1:UPValenciax+IGP101 .x+T32015/info Carr , N. G. ( 2010 ). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains . New York, NY : W.W. Norton . Miller , M. ( 2014 ). Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Inés Gil-Jaurena (ed.), Various authors. Open Praxis vol. 8 issue 4, Open Praxis, 2016, 279-366, DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.8.4.514