Open Praxis, volume 9 issue 2

Open Praxis, Jun 2017

For a fourth consecutive year Open Praxis has partnered with the Open Education Consortium for the publication of selected papers among those presented in the 2017 Open Education Global Conference (Cape Town, South Africa, 8-10 March, 2017). After the peer-review process 7 papers were accepted for publication. Additionaly, this issue includes 3 innovative practice papers.

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:

http://www.openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/viewFile/690/336

Open Praxis, volume 9 issue 2

Open Praxis 2304-070X Selected papers Inés Gil-Jaurena 0 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 - 2017 Open Education Consortium Global Conference OPEN PRAXIS Editorial policies 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. Editorial team Editor Inés Gil-Jaurena, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain Consultative editor Beatriz Malik, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain Publisher and contact information ICDE—International Council for Open and Distance Education Lilleakerveien 23 0283 Oslo, Norway Journal history 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). Copyright notice 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 Conceptualizing Open Educational Practices through the Lens of Constructive Alignment Michael Paskevicius Pragmatism vs. Idealism and the Identity Crisis of OER Advocacy Rajiv Sunil Jhangiani An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers’ adoption of OER Glenda Cox, Henry Trotter Differentiation in Access to, and the Use and Sharing of (Open) Educational Resources among Students and Lecturers at Kenyan Universities Judith Pete, Fred Mulder, Jose Dutra Oliveira Neto A survey of the awareness, offering, and adoption of OERs and MOOCs in Japan Katsusuke Shigeta, Mitsuyo Koizumi, Hiroyuki Sakai, Yasuhiro Tsuji, Rieko Inaba, Naoshi Hiraoka “The best part was the contact!”: Understanding postgraduate students’ experiences of wrapped MOOCs Tasneem Jaffer, Shanali Govender, Cheryl Brown Postgraduate students as OER capacitators Thomas William King Innovative practice articles Developing Civic Engagement in Distance Higher Education: A Case Study of Virtual Service-Learning (vSL) Programme in Spain Juan García-Gutierrez, Marta Ruiz-Corbella, Araceli del Pozo Armentia The challenges of incorporating ePortfolio into an undergraduate nursing programme Carmel Haggerty, Trish Thompson Digital Learning in Higher Education: A Training Course for Teaching Online - Universidade Aberta, Portugal José António Moreira, Susana Henriques, Maria de Fátima Goulão, Daniela Barros 121 125 141 151 173 195 207 223 235 245 253 Open Education. Introduction to selected papers Inés Gil-Jaurena Editor for Open Praxis. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia - UNED (Spain) Following a collaboration that led to the publication of special issues in 2014 (vol. 6 issue 2), 2015 (vol. 7 issue 2) and 2016 (vol. 8 issue 2) for a fourth consecutive year Open Praxis has partnered with the Open Education Consortium for the publication of selected papers among those presented in the 2017 Open Education Global Conference (Cape Town, South Africa, 8-10 March, 2017). As stated in the conference website (http://conference.oeconsortium.org/2017/about-oe-global-2017), The Open Education Global Conference is where the world meets to discuss, plan, reflect, collaborate, innovate and celebrate openness in education. We’re particularly excited to have Cape Town as the venue in 2017 conference, since it marks the 10 year anniversary of the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. 2017 actually marks several important milestones in Open Education, including the 15 year anniversary of the term “Open Educational Resources” and the 5 year anniversary of the Paris OER Declaration. (…) we’ll have the opportunity to celebrate and reflect on these and other achievements (…). Papers submitted for publication in Open Praxis have followed a separate review process. The Open Education Global Conference 2017 Programme Committee first reviewed submissions for inclusion in the conference. Those accepted for presentation and best rated by the committee, among the 89 submissions that stated an interest in the publication opportunity in Open Praxis, were then recommended to Open Praxis for peer review and possible inclusion in this issue. 12 contributions were preselected and invited to submit the full paper; 9 did so. These papers followed the usual submission guidelines in Open Praxis (i.e. double-blind peer review by two reviewers); additional revisions were requested during the peer review process, and finally 7 papers were accepted for publication. The selected contributions cover various topics in relation to Open Education: - The first three papers present conceptual approaches to the adoption of open education. - The next two papers address survey-based studies in specific contexts (Kenya and Japan) with regards to the use of OER. - The last two papers focus on postgraduate students’ experiences and perspectives in relation to MOOCs and OER. Michael Paskevicius, from the University of Victoria in Canada (Conceptualizing Open Educational Practices through the Lens of Constructive Alignment), undertakes a literature review to present a model for instructional design that considers and promotes open educational practices. This framework is of interest to anyone involved in higher education that wants to understand and put open education into practice. Also from a conceptual perspective, Rajiv Sunil Jhangiani, from Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Canada (Pragmatism vs. Idealism and the Identity Crisis of OER Advocacy), analyses the tensions faced by the open education movement, including the one between OER and OEP. He proposes an integrated approach that values diversity within the OER advocacy and identifies different types and stages in the adoption of open education. This lens can help to raise self-awareness within the open education movement and thus be critical with regards to the next steps in the advocacy commitment. Dealing also with the adoption of OER, Glenda Cox and Henry Trotter, from the University of Cape Town in South Africa (An OER framework, heuristic and lens: Tools for understanding lecturers’ adoption of OER), explore three analytical tools they have used when researching the use and/or creation of OER in three universities in South Africa. With a special focus on the institutional cultures and readiness, the framework they suggest is valuable for other researchers and institutions willing to adopt OER. Judith Pete, from Tangaza University College in Kenya, Fred Mulder, from Open Universiteit in The Netherlands, and Jose Dutra Oliveira Neto, from the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil (Differentiation in Access to, and the Use and Sharing of (Open) Educational Resources among Students and Lecturers at Kenyan Universities), present a study developed also in the ROER4D project that details the state of the art around OER in Kenya. Through questionnaires to lecturers and students, they explore quantitative descriptive data and provide an overview of the use, perceptions and intentions about OER in that context. They conclude with a set of recommendations derived from the study. In a different context, Katsusuke Shigeta, Mitsuyo Koizumi, Hiroyuki Sakai, Yasuhiro Tsuji, Rieko Inaba and Naoshi Hiraoka, from various higher education institutions in Japan (A survey of the awareness, offering, and adoption of OERs and MOOCs in Japan), provide an overview of the situation in their country, as a follow up of another previous survey-based study. Their detailed report covers universities and colleges all over Japan and explores awareness, use and intention about OER and MOOCs, highlighting some significant findings when comparing perception about MOOCs between institutions that provide them and those that don’t. Tasneem Jaffer, Shanali Govender and Cheryl Brown, from the University of Cape Town in South Africa (“The best part was the contact!”: Understanding postgraduate students’ experiences of wrapped MOOCs), use the Community of Inquiry framework to analyse a blended learning space that combined MOOCs about soft skills and a local face-to-face group with postgraduate students. The characteristics of the programme –supplemental and voluntary– made them incorporate a ‘learner presence’ category to the CoI framework and consider structural factors, as well. Finally in this section that presents selected papers from the Open Education Global Conference, Thomas William King, also from the University of Cape Town in South Africa (Postgraduate students as OER capacitators), explores a project developed in his university where students were involved in adapting lecturer’s materials and transforming them into OER. The successful experience is clearly described so the different steps, challenges and findings can be useful for other programmes. This Open Praxis issue also includes three innovative practice papers. Juan García-Gutierrez and Marta Ruiz-Corbella, from UNED, and Araceli del Pozo Armentia, from Universidad Complutense in Spain (Developing Civic Engagement in Distance Higher Education: A Case Study of Virtual Service-Learning (vSL) Programme in Spain), present a service-learning experience developed in virtual mode involving students from UNED and from a university in Benin. The authors introduce this new modality of practical learning with a civic commitment and report on this specific experience, highlighting the success and the challenges faced, as well as the potential of this type of programmes in distance education institutions, and claiming for its promotion. Carmel Haggerty, from Whitireia Community Polytechnic & Wellington Institute of Technology, and Trish Thompson, from Ara Institute of Canterbury in New Zealand (The challenges of incorporating ePortfolio into an undergraduate nursing programme), report on a experience with the Mahara platform. A group of tutors and students used this ePortfolio, and the paper explains the process, results and difficulties encountered in the progressive introduction of this electronic tool in a context –nursing programme– where paper-based portfolio is more commonly used. Finally, José António Moreira, Susana Henriques, Maria de Fátima Goulão and Daniela Barros, from Universidade Aberta in Portugal (Digital Learning in Higher Education: A Training Course for Teaching Online - Universidade Aberta, Portugal), discuss the progress of an online course addressed to professors who work at higher education institutions in Portugal and in other Portuguese speaking countries. They describe the course and the innovations they have incorporated, such as e-portfolios, interaction and collaboration, providing an example that could be of interest for other higher education institutions concerned with professional development. We wish Open Praxis readers an enjoyable and critical reading of this issue, which aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about open education. We specially thank from Open Praxis to the authors and the reviewers for their valuable contributions, and to the Open Education Consortium for the partnership and collaboration in the preparation of this special issue. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Conceptualizing Open Educational Practices through the Lens of Constructive Alignment Michael Paskevicius University of Victoria (Canada) The act of instruction may be conceptualized as consisting of four elements: learning outcomes, learning resources, teaching and learning activities, and assessments and evaluation. For instructors in higher education, the way they manage the relationships between these elements is what could be considered the core of their instructional practice. For each of the elements, this paper seeks to identify open educational practices, their affordances, and evidence of their utility in supporting the work of teachers in shifting from existing teaching and learning practices to more open educational practices. The literature reviewed and model proposed may provide educational developers or proponents of open education a lens with which to discuss open educational practices with faculty specifically related to their teaching and learning design practices. Keywords: open educational practices (OEP); constructive alignment; open educational resources; educational development; innovation in teaching and learning; Creative Commons Introduction Higher education institutions are situated in an increasingly open technological, social, and legal landscape. Various movements are developing which signify those changes, including the emergence of open educational resources (OER), massive open online courses (MOOCs), alternative schooling and training opportunities, and a desire for increased personalization of educational experiences. This paper explores the emergence of this open ecology in higher education and the impact on teaching and learning practices. Specifically, this paper explores how the availability and affordances of open education may impact the pedagogical choices and designs of faculty who teach in higher education. Digital technologies have been characterized as protean, unstable, and opaque: protean, in that they can be used in a variety of possible ways (Papert, 1993); unstable, in that they are changing and evolving rapidly over time; and opaque in that their potential applications and inner workings are not always made explicit (Turkle, 1997). Unlike traditional teaching technologies which have more evident uses such as a pencil, which is used for writing, or a microscope, which is for viewing small objects, digital technologies can be applied in a number of different ways in an educational context (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The affordances, or ways of using, digital technologies present opportunities for innovative usage in education but also remain a challenge to apply effectively. One affordance of digital technologies is widely recognized; they enable the creation of digital resources which can be copied and shared with little cost or effort. The internet now provides a global network facilitating search and access to online resources. In the context of higher education, the recent emergence of open access to teaching and learning material including educational content, learning designs, and learning activities provides a valuable resource for faculty, students, and selflearners as well as an opportunity to move towards a more participatory culture (Brown & Adler, 2008; Ehlers & Conole, 2010). Further, open licensing models support the legal copying, adaptation, and re-sharing of digital educational materials. Several higher education institutions around the world have leveraged these technologies to support teaching and learning (Smith & Casserly, 2006; Hodgkinson-Williams & Gray, 2009; Murphy, 2013). This is a significant shift away from a time when educational content was mostly only available to individuals enrolled in formal education. Institutionally, the impetus to share materials in this way may be driven by a marketing objective with an agenda to raise institutional profiles (Dos Santos, 2008); altruistic motivations to provide access to knowledge (Hylén & Schuller, 2007); or to invite innovation networks and collaboration across institutions (Carey, Davis, Ferreras, & Porter, 2015). Open educational practices (OEP) are those teaching and learning practices enabled and supported by the open movement, either in making use of OER, engaging students in openness, or making professional practice more accessible. The goal for this paper is to explore the literature on open education, specifically considering and scrutinizing the impact on the teaching and learning practices of faculty in higher education. Scholars have suggested a move to openness in higher education may provide an impetus for innovative teaching and learning processes, resulting in new conceptualizations of teaching and learning roles and practices (Lane & McAndrew, 2010; Porter, 2013; Littlejohn & Hood, 2016). In this way, open education may be a catalyst for innovation in the practice of teaching in higher education. However, these practices must be supported by both an understanding of the affordances of the tools which support open, emerging technological literacies and competencies (A. Lane, 2009), as well as pedagogical knowledge (Bates, 2011). Additionally, engaging students with openness can advance the competences, knowledge, and skills needed to participate successfully within the political, economic, social, and cultural realms of a more open society (Geser, 2007; McAndrew, Scanlon & Clow, 2010). For those faculty taking on OEP as part of their teaching, a greater understanding of the issues, challenges, and necessary supports is needed to further develop OEP (Beetham, Falconer, McGill & Littlejohn, 2012; Borthwick & Gallagher-Brett, 2014; Camilleri, Ehlers & Pawlowski, 2014; Pitt, 2015; Littlejohn & Hood, 2016). Defining Open Education Practice While some literature has suggested OEP are simply those which make use of OER, one of the founding documents on open education suggests a broader vision. The Cape Town Open Education Declaration suggests, “open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also draws upon open technologies that facilitate collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices that empower educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. It may also grow to include new approaches to assessment, accreditation and collaborative learning” (The Cape Town Open Education Declaration, 2007, para. 4). More recently scholars have argued that research on OER should focus less on access to digital content, and more so on the impact of openness in supporting innovative educational practices (OPAL, 2011; Kimmons, 2016). By exploring a broader notion of openness in education, we shift the focus from content (OER) to the practices (OEP) that are necessary for the use of that content (Deimann & Farrow, 2013). The shifting focus of discourses from OER towards OEP represents a positive advancement of the field, as this represents a change from developing and releasing OER content to researching their impact (Weller, de los Arcos, Farrow, Pitt & McAndrew, 2015). As found with the costly learning object repository movement, educational technology initiatives should support and report on practices and processes rather than products alone (Friesen, 2009). Open pedagogy, open educational practices, or open practices, often used interchangeably, have been defined as “the next phase in OER development, which will see a shift from a focus on resources to a focus on OEP being a combination of open resources use and open learning architectures to transform learning” (Camilleri & Ehlers, 2011, p. 6). Several definitions of OEP have been proposed in the literature. Wiley (2014) proposed the 5R model to describe the affordances, practices, and possibilities of working with OER which form a framework for practice. OEP have also been defined as teaching and learning activities where both “resources are shared by making them openly available and pedagogical practices are employed which rely on social interaction, knowledge creation, peer learning and shared learning practices” (Ehlers, 2013, p. 94). Stagg (2014) contributes a continuum model for OEP which ranges from awareness and access of OER, sharing of one’s own works as OER, passive remixing of OER, active remixing of OER, and finally student engagement in the creation of OER. Hegarty (2015) proposes eight attributes which describe the strategies and policies which encompass OEP. These attributes are broadly focused providing guidance on the qualities of OEP while not making specific recommendations for practice. Nascimbeni & Burgos (2016) propose a definition which advances towards defining the specific scholarly practices associated with OEP. This definition identifies activities such as course design, content creation, pedagogy, and assessment design as areas for infusing OEP. Based on these attempts to articulate OEP and a desire to have a definition which more specifically addresses how faculty might make the shift from existing practices to open practices, a working definition in the context of this research is proposed. Teaching and learning practices where openness is enacted within all aspects of instructional practice; including the design of learning outcomes, the selection of teaching resources, and the planning of activities and assessment. OEP engage both faculty and students with the use and creation of OER, draw attention to the potential afforded by open licences, facilitate open peerreview, and support participatory student-directed projects. This definition is purposefully intended to align with the model of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) and provide logical pathways for faculty considering enacting OEP in their teaching and learning practices. Previous research suggests there is a need to understand the potential of OEP to change educators’ practice around learning design (Harrison & DeVries, 2016). Others have suggested the need for concrete strategies which empower faculty to integrate open teaching and learning practices (Nascimbeni & Burgos, 2016). The proposed approach provides faculty with ways to think about building openness into the design of learning outcomes, selection of resources, planning of teaching activities, and design of assessment. Method The literature review that follows presents research on how emergent OEP are impacting teaching and learning practices. These practices are described in terms of their affordances and evidence of their utility in supporting educators shifting from existing to open practices. A combination of methods was used to conduct this narrative literature review. Web of Science was initially used to source literature in relation to the search terms ‘open educational practice’, ‘open education practice’, ‘open practice’, or ‘open pedagogy’. A similar query was run using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software which retrieves and analyzes Google Scholar citation data. Research databases and Google Scholar were used to scan for additional literature. Citation tracing methods were further used to locate research cited within the works reviewed. The corpus of literature was then narrowed to include only empirical research which focused specifically on OEP in relation to instructional practice. The Atomic Structure of Instructional Practice A model of instructional practice will be used to frame the analysis of the literature on OEP within the context of teaching and learning. This approach situates OEP within existing instructional practice, rather than taking the common optimistic view that openness alone is transformative and requires entirely novel pedagogical approaches (Masterman & Chan, 2015). Biggs’ (1996) model of constructive alignment provides a framework to guide impactful instructional design and practice. The model suggests an ideal synergy between the intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities which meet those outcomes, and assessment and evaluation which demonstrate the achievement of the outcomes. Inherent in the model is the notion that students create and construct meaning by engaging in learning activities, rather than having it transmitted to them by faculty (Biggs, 2003). Supporting this process are the knowledge resources which faculty select to support the development of strong outcomes, provide sources for teaching and learning activities, or sources for assessment and evaluation. When the elements of instructional practice are well aligned, studies have shown that students are more likely to adopt approaches to learning which result in meaningful learning (Wang, Su, Cheung, Wong & Kwong, 2013). Thus, students have a clear understanding of the outcomes, see their relation to teaching and learning activities, and are better able to plan for and achieve success during assessment (Beetham et al., 2012). The framework of constructive alignment provides a lens for conceptualizing the integration of OEP in a deliberate way. Previous studies have shown that faculty tend to pick and choose aspects of OEP might which fit their existing pedagogical approaches (Beetham et al., 2012) or apply a “bolton” approach to design which foregrounds the addition of technology over the consideration of how that integration contributes to meaningful pedagogy (Lyons, Hannon & Macken, 2014). Considering OEP within a framework which supports pedagogically sound instructional design practices makes it more straightforward to identify specific, relevant, roles for integrating OER and enacting OEP (Masterman, 2016). An analysis of the literature on OEP follows considering these four core elements of constructive alignment. Open Practices for the Design of Learning Outcomes According to Biggs, “teachers need to be clear about what they want their students to learn, and how they would manifest that learning in terms of ‘performances of understanding’” (Biggs, 1996, p. 360). Learning outcomes provide a description of the intended knowledge, attributes, and skills of a successful student. Ensuring strongly written learning outcomes are made explicit and openly accessible to students, thereby helping them to understand what is needed for success, may be a simple way to enact OEP. While this may seem a logical activity some scholars have suggested that the deliberate articulation of aligned learning outcomes are often not fully considered or communicated (Blumberg, 2009). Learning outcomes may further be made openly accessible as OER, so that students have a better sense of the goals of a course prior to enrolling. Increasing the transparency and accessibility of the curriculum also has benefits at the departmental and program level, potentially creating greater alignment of courses within an academic program (Lam & Tsui, 2016). The process of sharing and aligning course and program learning outcomes among faculty has also been shown to positively impact collaboration and collegiality (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009; Petrides, Jimes, Middleton-Detzner, Walling & Weiss, 2011) Ehlers (2011) articulated a spectrum of open and flexible practices which relate strongly to the design of more open student learning outcomes. Low degrees of openness are reflected in learning outcomes where transmission and reproduction of knowledge is the intended goal. Medium degrees of openness might be said to exist when learning outcomes are predetermined, but the pedagogy is flexible and students are actively involved in collective dialogue. High degrees of openness would involve co-creation of the learning outcomes, objectives, and methods by students. Moving towards the high end of the spectrum for designing learning outcomes allows for greater personalization, autonomy, and self-regulation on the part of students (Ehlers, 2011). The research of Hipkins (2012) and Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon and Barch (2004) further support the involvement of students in contributing to the formation of learning outcomes, which were found to support personalization, autonomy, and increased student engagement. The move towards more open learning outcomes further shifts the role of the faculty member from transmitter of knowledge to facilitator of learning. While learning outcomes have not been largely ascribed as OER, it has been argued that they represent educational artefacts worth sharing, improving, and reusing (Ehlers, 2011). De los Arcos, Farrow, Perryman, Pitt and Weller (2014) found that OER that included associated learning outcomes were more likely to be used by self-directed learners and educators seeking resources for their own practice. Conole (2013) further suggests the use and sharing of visualizations such as ‘learning outcome maps’ which explicitly link intended learning outcomes, activities, resources, and assessment in a visual way. Providing access to these visualized learning designs ensure students know how to be successful and helps expose the instructional design and representative pedagogy to other educators (Conole & Culver, 2010). Open Practices for the Design of Learning Resources The selection, adaptation, and creation of learning resources support most aspects of instructional practice. Despite the increased availability of openly licensed resources now available, commercially developed resources are still dominant in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2016). Commercially developed educational resources limit possibilities for teaching and learning due to their physical and digital affordances in combination with most copyright laws around the world. Where a digital copy of a textbook is available from a publisher, it is often locked into a proprietary format with digital rights protection (DRM), which provides access for a limited timeframe, and under restrictive copyright (Wiley, 2014). This significantly limits what both faculty and students can do with their learning resources. In contrast OER offer significant financial, legal, and technical freedoms. Several empirical studies have been conducted to assess educators’ engagement and use of OER. These studies show that while awareness of OER is increasing, adoption, usage, and contributions by faculty remain low (de los Arcos et al., 2014; Allen & Seaman, 2016; Jhangiani, Pitt, Hendricks, Key & Lalonde, 2016). Faculty widely recognize the cost savings for students in assigning OER and evidence of increased student performance and satisfaction are emerging (Pitt, 2015; Weller et al., 2015). Further empirical research suggests that, in comparison to the use of traditional texts, the usage of OER does not adversely impact existing learning outcomes (Robinson, Fischer, Wiley & Hilton, 2014; Fischer, Hilton, Robinson & Wiley, 2015; Jhangiani et al., 2016). Faculty cite the challenges of locating relevant, high quality, and topical resources in their subject area as a significant barrier to more actively using OER (de los Arcos et al., 2014; Allen & Seaman, 2016). Despite the challenges cited there is a vast quantity of OER now available on the internet. Resources, many of which could be considered educational, licensed with Creative Commons have surpassed a billion, tripling in volume over the last five years. Creative Commons speculates that over 76,000 of those resources are OER; 1.4 million research papers; 46 million articles, stories, books, or documents; and over 400 million encompass other forms of media including audio, images, or video (Merkley, 2015). These resources may be compiled: into other educational resources; for developing online learning materials (Beaven, 2013); as sources of inspiration (Borthwick & Gallagher-Brett, 2014; Weller et al., 2015); or for engaging students in creative projects (Tur, Urbina & Moreno, 2016). More theoretical research is needed on the time, effort, and literacies needed to conduct these activities as well as their impacts on pedagogy (Beetham et al., 2012; Jhangiani et al., 2016; Littlejohn & Hood, 2016). Faculty’s adoption of OER also has a secondary impact on students, in that it may be their first exposure to open education, open licensing, and non-commercial sources of knowledge. Acknowledging and sharing the resources being collaboratively created through open education can have an impact on students’ own knowledge practices (Carey et al., 2015). Not only do these practices make the activities in higher education more relevant in modern society but they also foster the development of valuable literacies for students entering the workforce (Royle, Stager & Traxler, 2014). Open Practices for the Design of Teaching and Learning Activities The availability of OER has been frequently cited as a way for faculty to find inspiration for their own teaching and learning activities (Petrides et al., 2011; de los Arcos et al., 2014; Jhangiani et al., 2016; Kimmons, 2016). Further, this exposure to practice can create opportunities for the collaborative development of learning resources and designs (Masterman & Wild, 2011; Petrides et al., 2011). Many faculty initially access OER to explore discipline specific pedagogical approaches and resources with the intent of enhancing their practice (de los Arcos et al., 2014; Weller et al., 2015; Jhangiani et al., 2016). By seeking teaching and learning activities which are more openly accessible, faculty may review strategies relevant in or beyond their discipline, discovering new ways to introduce concepts or design teaching and learning activities (Beaven, 2013). Petrides et al. (2011) reported that faculty were able to build upon and adapt OER to enhance their own courses. Faculty noted that OER provides ideas for teaching activities in the classroom and resources which can be used to design more interactive learning experiences (Petrides et al., 2011). Engagement with OER has also been found to stimulate critical reflection in faculty leading to the reconsideration of existing teaching and learning activities (Beetham et al., 2012; McGill, Falconer, Dempster, Littlejohn & Beetham, 2013). Much like sourcing OER, faculty report that finding appropriate resources and integrating new activities in their curriculum is time consuming (Petrides et al., 2011). Furthermore, knowing where to find resources is still reported to be one of the biggest challenges to using OER (de los Arcos et al., 2014; Allen & Seaman, 2016). Professional development programs can be helpful in bringing faculty together to take time to share and explore practice (Borthwick & Gallagher-Brett, 2014; Kimmons, 2016). Further, promoting openness at the institutional level can support capacity building and collaboration on curriculum development within departments (Lyons et al., 2014; Karunanayaka, Naidu, Rajendra & Ratnayake, 2015). Faculty may gradually gravitate towards more OEP as they engage further with the movement. Pitt (2015) reported that 25% of faculty who had engaged with OER reported changing their pedagogical approaches based on this exposure. Further research is needed to determine if engagement with OER leads to the development of OEP. Additionally, research is needed to determine whether adopting OEP alters the dominant model of teacher-centred education. It has been argued that many of the teaching and learning activities which still prevail involve an educator mediating an authoritative learning resource, requiring students to study and reproduce it (Geser, 2007; McAndrew et al., 2010). Students’ perceptions of the move to greater OEP are also crucial to understand, as “teachers who use OER instead of lecturing risk being seen as ‘not real teachers’” (Ossiannilsson & Creelman, 2011, p. 376). Therefore, research is needed into both faculty’s move towards OEP and the subsequent impact on students. The pedagogical value of a move towards OEP is that it can provide space for and foster dialogue, co-creation, and participatory learning, deconstructing the teacher-student binary by increasing access and inviting participatory learning (Morris & Strommel, 2014). By adopting OEP in their teaching and learning activities, faculty may enable students to be further involved in the active creation and curation of knowledge during their learning. Open Practices for Designing Assessment and Evaluation Constructive alignment derives from a constructivist view of learning emphasising the “centrality of the learner’s activities in creating meaning” (Biggs, 1996, p. 347). OEP which impact assessment rely on the active participation and production of knowledge by students, shifting the role of student as consumer of knowledge to student as a producer of knowledge (Neary & Winn, 2009). In doing so students are tasked with greater autonomy and must take responsibility for their own learning (Ossiannilsson & Creelman, 2011). This may be interpreted as a risky venture for faculty concerned about students who are uncomfortable with less traditional teaching methods (Dohn, 2009; Ossiannilsson & Creelman, 2011; Gray et al., 2012). Conversely, it has been argued that OEP may be a way to bridge the formal/informal learning divide in higher education (Cronin, 2016). While introducing students to OER and OEP, researchers have found that students generally hold positive attitudes around the possibilities these practices offer (Tur et al., 2016). Dohn (2009) surfaces several challenges related to student’s perceptions around knowledge, learning, and the goals of the practice implicit in more open forms of assessment. Engaging students in OEP requires a change of orientation around issues such as “authorship, copyright, knowledge production, and expertise […] enabled by the distributed authorship, the renouncement of copyright, and the acceptance of one’s text being edited and transformed by later coauthors” (Dohn, 2009, p. 344). Despite this, it is argued that more open assessment practices have benefits to the learner, including the practicing of digital literacies in the context of teaching and learning, active engagement in the production of knowledge, working within and integrating both formal and informal learning environments, and developing digital literacies and competencies relevant and needed in future workplaces (Dohn, 2009). Downes (2010) argues that those benefiting most from OER are the people who are producing the resources. This argument is reinforced in Littlejohn & Hood’s (2016) study which investigates how individuals learn and construct knowledge through the creation, adaptation, and reusing of OER. In engaging with and sharing OER, individuals promote their own work, teaching, and research processes. Further, contributors to OER may engage with and form networks around the resources they create, collecting feedback and reviews to further improve their work. Following Downes’ argument, engaging students as contributors and creators of OER as part of assessment could lead to benefits for the student in terms of promoting their own creative work, forging connections, and building their own portfolio. So much of the work students produce for assessment in higher education remains invisible to their peers, wider institution, local community, or the world. Students most often produce works which are submitted via closed learning management systems (LMS), then reviewed only by the faculty member who provides feedback and a grade. Naturally this is appropriate for many instances of assessment, for example sensitive reflections or early formative work. Moreover, students may find themselves uncomfortable sharing openly, so flexibility and sensitivities to this should be accommodated (Masterman & Wild, 2011). However, students may be provided with encouragement, opportunities, and literacies which empower them to share their work more widely if appropriate. In doing so we equip them with the literacies of purposeful searching, curation of their own works, understanding of open licenses, and ways of using OER in their professional lives (Masterman & Wild, 2011). In some cases, it may be quite appropriate that resources created by students during the process of their learning should be accessed by future students. By doing so we enable students to build on the work of their peers. An example may be found with community outreach projects; providing students with access to the work previously done in the community fosters the collective and collaborative advancement of a community outreach project. Making student contributions openly available “is seen by educators as an important factor for improving teaching and learning and for creating more open and participatory cultures” (Alevizou, 2012, p. 11). Student work shared openly invites review, comment, refinement, network formation, and potential opportunities for collaboration. “When work is done privately – when it is carefully hidden from the public – no synergy is possible. When the individual nodes remain disconnected, no network can emerge” (Wiley, 2016, para. 18). Increasingly examples of the benefits of open and networked learning can be found in the development of student eportfolios, social networks, and personal websites which showcase academic works developed through the course of study. The literature suggests that faculty should be encouraged to design assignments which involve students in the creation and adaptation of OER (Jhangiani et al., 2016). Engaging students in the production of OER levels the student-teacher relationship while engaging students as coproducers of knowledge (Masterman, 2016). Faculty in Masterman’s (2016) study reported that engaging students with OEP supported the development of communication, analytical, and problem solving skills. Hodgkinson-Williams & Paskevicius (2012) study investigated students’ development of agency as they engaged in the development of OER in collaboration with faculty. This collaboration resulted in the development of students’ digital literacies while preserving the time that faculty would have had to invest in reworking and distributing their own existing materials as OER. Involving students in the production of OER allowed them to practice developing digital literacies using both informal and formal tools and learning environments. Students developed creative agency as they worked, initially removing unnecessary details or addressing copyrighted concerns, then questioning the pedagogic design and presentation of the materials. This feedback was presented to faculty and the team worked together to address technical and pedagogical issues. When exploring more openness in relation to assessment and evaluation, some faculty have expressed concern this may lead to students copying open versions of previous students’ work or sourcing content from the web in academically inappropriate ways (Glud, Buus, Ryberg, Georgsen & Davidsen, 2010; Waycott et al., 2010). While this does become possible with more open methods of assessment and evaluation, it may be managed through alternative learning designs which challenge students to build upon, critique, or evaluate previous students work and adhere to explicit attribution and citation inherent in the practice. A core feature of OER is the practice of attribution and usage as defined by the permissions embedded in open licences. Developing student literacies around how to interpret open licenses, attribute authorship, and appropriately provide links back to the source are valuable for working on the open web and in developing creative works. In doing so students may further develop an understanding of how adopting open licenses for their own works might enable the creative process of others, further developing the commons. Conversely, faculty have voiced concern about students creating inaccurate resources and a need for quality control of student generated OER (Masterman & Chan, 2015). Peer-review and assessment of student works may help alleviate some of these issues. However, these are valid operational issues for enacting OEP around assessment and can be addressed through the thoughtful design and alignment of the assessments to the learning outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand how engaging students with OEP as part of assessment impacts their knowledge creation processes and practices. Discussion There is mounting evidence that suggests engagement with OEP has the potential to transform educational practices by shifting the relationships among faculty, between faculty and students, and between faculty and organisations (Ehlers, 2011; McGill et al., 2013; Masterman, 2016). In terms of instructional practice, these changes show “potential to flatten the traditional hierarchy and change the balance of power in learner/teacher relationships” (McGill et al., 2013, p. 7). The potential for increasing accessibility and promoting the sharing of learning outcomes, resources, activities, and assessment designs among faculty represents a great opportunity to collectively improve educational practice, within and across disciplines. Constructive alignment provides a framework to situate examples of OEP within a pedagogically sound model for the design of instructional practice. Figure 1 provides a visual model of the main themes of OEP drawn from the literature within the model of constructive alignment. For each of the elements of the model, examples are provided which may guide faculty towards how to consider OEP as part of their design or redesign process. For example, when designing assessment and evaluation activities, faculty may enact OEP by exploring ways in which they can engage students as producers of content, find ways to integrate peer-review and assessment, promote student collaboration, and develop digital literacies. Additional examples may be developed to further enhance this model, however this provides a starting point for faculty familiar with learning design, but not OEP, to conceptualize their practice. Despite the opportunities presented through this new landscape of OEP, many in higher education operate largely as they did in the past (McGoldrick, Watts & Economou, 2015). Both leadership and professional development are needed to support a shift to OEP. Additionally, further research is needed to better understand the phenomenon of OEP and their impacts on faculty and students. It has been suggested that educational leadership should embrace “openness as a core organizational value if [they] desire to both remain relevant to its learners and to contribute to the positive advancement of the field of higher education” (Wiley & Hilton III, 2009, p. 1). Further recommendations have been made to embed support for engaging with openness as part of the institutional mission (Masterman & Chan, 2015). In many ways, the ethos of higher education is closely aligned to the open education movement, however, it is often not made explicit or done in a coordinated way. For Lerman, Miyagawa and Margulies (2008) “open sharing of knowledge is at the heart of the academic process. For many faculty, it is an intrinsic value, convincingly demonstrated in their teaching and research” (2008, p. 214). Willinsky (2014) further argues that by opening access to the teaching, learning, and research processes which occur in universities, we promote the possibility for unintended lessons and unexpected interests among new groups of individuals in society. Openness is a way of engaging with our communities, offering a window into the activities happening on our campuses while inviting broader access and participation from individuals who might not have traditionally had contact with the institution (McGill et al., 2013; Willinsky, 2014). Engaging students with OEP may contribute to the development of valuable literacies for working in the information age. Despite the increased availability and breadth of available OER, students report limited awareness of what this means and how to locate these resources (Czerniewicz, 2016). More research is needed into how engaging students with OEP might impact their own personal knowledge and creative practices (Carey et al., 2015). Engaging students with OEP may motivate students to become engaged in the learning process. By involving them as contributors, collaborators, partners, knowledge creators, and reviewers which can lead to enhanced learning experiences (Nel, 2017). Students may further benefit from the opportunity for peer-review, assessment, and feedback enabled by the integration of OEP into assessment design. By inviting students to make selections of their work more visible to their peers and the wider public we present opportunities for community engagement, network formation, and experiential learning. A remaining challenge is higher education’s entrenched relationship with closed systems and copyright enforced content. Most higher education institutions have invested in some form of LMS, a toolset characterized by its closed, ridged, over functioned, and inflexible nature (Broekman, Hall, Byfield, Hides & Worthington, 2014). Many faculty gravitate towards using the LMS as a consequence of its availability (Bennett, Dawson, Bearman, Molloy & Boud, 2016). The physical and digital boundaries created by these environments determine available pedagogies (L. M. Lane, 2009; Dron, 2016). Porter (2013) suggests that the rigid technical frameworks which the LMS typically employs may act as a barrier to the creation and use of OER. Therefore, tools which explicitly support OEP should also be considered as part of the institutional offering. New forms of digital technologies are providing opportunities to enact flexible pedagogies which promote student agency, autonomy, and self regulation (Evans, Muijs, & Tomlinson, 2015). The literacies which support these emergent practices may not come naturally by learning about and interacting with OER alone. Professional development and further training is needed to become equipped with the skills necessary to effectively leverage OEP for enhancing pedagogy (Petrides et al., 2011). This is also true for students, who may not have previously engaged with OEP (Ross, 2012). Allocating time to develop literacies in OEP as well as time to work with colleagues to develop and share practices are cited as significantly important considerations for fostering OEP (Kimmons, 2016). Faculty highly value time to collaborate with other teaching professionals and generate opportunities Conclusion The open movement has come a long way in higher education, as awareness has grown in terms of what OER can offer faculty, the potential cost savings for students, and the impact of collaboration and open sharing of teaching and learning practices. The emergence of OEP reinforces that “open education is not just about disseminating resources […] but also about an opportunity toward broadening and deepening our collective understanding of teaching and learning” (Iiyoshi & Kumar, 2008, p. 439). Situating OEP within the model of constructive alignment allows faculty to envision how open practices might fit into their landscape of practice. Furthermore, integrating OEP in a deliberate way, always with a focus towards contributing to meaningful learning outcomes, ensures that OEP contribute to aligned and meaningful instructional practice. Acknowledgment This paper was presented at the 2017 Open Education Consortium Global Conference, held in Cape Town (South Africa) in March 8th-10th 2017 (http://conference.oeconsortium.org/2017), with whom Open Praxis established a partnership. After a pre-selection by the Conference Programme Committee, the paper underwent the usual peer-review process in Open Praxis. Juan García-Gutierrez et al. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Open Praxis, vol. 9 issue 2, April–June 2017, pp. 245–252 (ISSN 2304-070X) The challenges of incorporating ePortfolio into an undergraduate nursing programme Carmel Haggerty Whitireia Community Polytechnic & Wellington Institute of Technology (New Zealand) Trish Thompson Ara Institute of Canterbury (New Zealand) Registered nurses today are required to maintain a portfolio of evidence of their competence to practice. This evidence collection commences at undergraduate level with nursing programmes requiring portfolio’s as assessments, which are often submitted in hard copy. This paper describes the outcome when a small group of tutorial staff introduced ePortfolio’s into an undergraduate nursing degree. Evaluation of the effectiveness was collected through reflective conversations, which focused on issues that arise when implementing this change to a curriculum, along with improving understanding of ePortfolios and their use in practice. Routine student evaluations and the lessons learnt from tutorial staff reflections were used to inform the planning for wider implementation of ePortfolio’s. Introduction Within the three year nursing degree, students are required to maintain a record of their clinical placement attendance, objectives and achievements. This record comes together to form a portfolio of evidence of achievement which students often use as a foundation for an employment Curriculum Vitae on completion of their study. Students currently use a physical folder, in which documents are stored and handed in at the end of each semester for tutorial review and grading where required. This can be cumbersome for both students and tutors and an electronic platform for the portfolio was seen as a viabile alternative. A project was developed to explore the student and tutorial staff experiences of introducing ePortfolio into an undergraduate nursing programme. The aim of the project was to identify strategies to support the integration of ePortfolios, identify issues as they arose and provide tutorial staff with strategies to support wider integration across the undergraduate nursing degree. In nursing education the use of ePortfolio is increasing, with ongoing debate regarding the electronic platform to best support the ePortfolio and how the ePortfolio intersects with assessment processes. The project identified literature to support the rationale for using ePortfolio in health degree education, it’s place in assessment, as well as some things to consider in regard to the introduction and support of an ePortfolio. Literature also highlights the usefulness of ePortfolio in supporting the student to develop critical reflection and writing skills. This paper reviews current literature, discusses the implementation of ePortfolio across two cohorts of students, explores key issues and identifies a strategy for the wider introduction of ePortfolio across an undergraduate nursing programme. Portfolios are a common assessment tool used in undergraduate nursing education (McMullan, 2005; Oermann, 2002) . Portfolios have to date been used as a collection of artefacts such as competencies, reflections and attendance sign offs, which have usually been submitted in hard copy (McMullan, 2005) . Green, Wylie and Jackson (2014) discuss the notion of nursing education being the best place to start good professional practices. The undergraduate student nurses portfolio is an excellent starting point for introducing and developing these professional practices. These early portfolio’s act as a repository for recording professional development, career advancement and planning, as well as evidence for performance appraisal and competency assessment (Andrews & Cole, 2015; Curtis, 2012; Green et al., 2014) . It is becoming more common internationally to introduce electronic or ePortfolios to students during their undergraduate education (Green, Wylie & Jackson, 2014) . The benefits of using an ePortfolio in undergraduate nursing education are many and varied (Curtis, 2012; Garrett, MacPhee & Jackson, 2013; Green et al., 2014) , as a repository for documents, artefacts and information, reflective journal, resume, and professional development record. The introduction of ePortfolio’s needs to be consistent with sound educational principles around assessment and learning styles. Assessment and ePortfolio Curtis (2012) discusses how the ePortfolio can be used for not only a platform for storing information, but provide “transparency of the learning process and facilitating visibility of learning and formative assessment” (p. 66), with feedback to students supporting their development and critical reflection skills. Formative feedback in ePortfolios can improve summative assessment results (Green et al., 2014) . Andre and Heartfield (2007) discuss the need for clarity in regard to the intended learning outcomes of using portfolio’s in assessment and breaks this down into educational, staff development and regulatory outcomes. They go on to support the use of portfolios in the development of the learner, in particular “evidence based practice, professional accountability, application of theory to practice and responsiveness to change” (Andre & Heartfield, 2007, p. 58) . Assessments attached to ePortfolio need to consider how this will work in reality as it contradicts some of the other literature, which suggests that ePortfolios should not be used for summative assessment, however in saying this, it needs to be acknowledged that linking ePorfolio to assessment can be a strong motivating factor to encourage use (Andrews & Cole, 2015; McMullan, 2005) . Andrews and Cole (2015) talk about the ePortfolio providing “assessment of learning and assessment for learning” (p. 569), with the ePortfolio becoming more of a “space for learning rather than an assessment space” (p. 571). Learning styles and ePortfolio Green et al. (2014) state that the use of an ePortfolio is consistent with different learning styles, auditory, visual, kinaesthetic and therefore should meet the needs of most students. The critical component is how the ePortfolio is introduced and how well supported students are in using the ePortfolio in such a way as it best meets their individual learning style. Nielsen, Pedersen, and Helms (2015) discuss how important the use of ePortfolio can be in supporting the student to develop alternative learning styles, in particular the power of learning through writing. Writing in a portfolio particularly as a journal is a powerful tool in support of ‘reflection-on-action’ (Green et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2015) . Romova and Andrew (2011) describe the benefit of using a portfolio to develop writing skills and the benefit of reflection on gaining “key academic literacies” (p. 120). Further, the effects of blogging and electronic journaling appear to have a positive impact on writing skills (Anderson, 2010). Garrett et al. (2013) identify the need for the portfolio to be constructed and owned by students, as it is the process of preparing the portfolio that promotes active learning. Electronic Platform The literature discusses the use of technology in undergraduate nursing education as having the potentional to be stressful, causing anxiety for both students and tutorial staff (Andrews & Cole, 2015; McMullan, 2005) , and therefore ePortfolios need to be introduced carefully with clear guidelines and good support structures. The stress of introduction can also be impacted by many variables that the educator may or may not have direct control over, i.e. IT access and reliability (Andrews & Cole, 2015), but can seriously disrupt the introduction of ePortfolio. The critical thing is that the implementation is not ad hoc, is supported both within the programme by sound pedagogy and the wider organisational systems and processes. There are a variety of ePortfolio platforms available, however in New Zealand we have access to Mahara (https://mahara.org/), a free, open source ePortfolio platform that students and tutors can access through the Learning Management System (Moodle). There are varied opinions on the suitability of Mahara as an ePortfolio platform across undergraduate and postgraduate nursing programmes across New Zealand. Mahara is the only free specialist ePortfolio that is available as open source and after looking at other options being used nationally and internationally, Mahara was the option chosen. Mahara is supported internally and contains functionality relevant to nursing. In particular the functionality around journaling, recording continuing professional development and competency assessment through the latest upgrade which includes a ‘Smart Evidence’ function. All of these factors supported the decision to use the Mahara platform. Andrews and Cole (2015) saw the ePortfolio platform Mahara as complex and only found that introducing small components of it at one time rather than all at once was a good way to proceed. Complexity increases over the three years, with the components developed overtime becoming a extensive portfolio of evidence for employment purposes, by the time the student has completed their undergraduate degree. This is supported by Bright (2016) who explored the relationship between Mahara as an ePortfolio, with social constuctivism, scaffolding and gradual introduction of assessment components. Project Outline Tutorial staff (n=7) working across the the first and second years of one nursing degree programme participated in the project along with a senior academic staff member (SASM) overseeing the project. There were three key stages to the project. 1. The SASM worked with the tutorial staff from the programme to introduce ePortfolios as a concept, facilitate training on the Mahara platform and plan the introduction of ePortfolio’s to the students. This session was facilitated by the organisation’s online educational support staff over one hour. Further support was provided one to one, by both the support staff and the SASM as required. It was expected that the tutorial staff would then continue to use the ePortfolio along with the students and reflect on their experience. 2. The SASM, along with the tutorial staff, provided ePortfolio training to the students in year one and year two. These were hands on sessions with students either using their own device or borrowing a device from a laptop bank that was made available for the session. The facilitators focussed on the journal section of the Mahara ePortfolio, asking students, who were about to go into a clinical placement, to use the ePortfolio for regular reflections throughout their placement. These reflections could then inform the student’s summative reflective assessment, which was due two weeks following their clinical placement. In addition to this the students competency assessment forms were made available in word documents to store and add to as they worked through their placements. 3. The final stage included tutorial reflections and student evaluations. The project team reflected on how their experiences of using and supporting students to use the Mahara ePortfolio. Two reflectives sessions were held, one immediately post the initial training and introduction of Mahara ePortfolio to students. The second reflection occurred at the end of the semester following review of the student evaluations. Student evaluations, which are routinely undertaken at the end of a course, were critical to ensure that the student experience was captured. These evaluations have standard questions, along with two additional questions that can be targeted for specific purposes. The project team asked the following questions relating to ePortfolio use: How did you find using the ePortfolio during your clinical placement? How should the ePortfolio be introduced into your nursing degree? Thematic analysis (Saldana, 2012) was applied to the notes from the project team reflective sessions and student evaluations. This process identified the following overarching themes that informed the planning for the wider implementation of ePortfolio into the nursing programme – motivation and timing; training and support; technology and access. Evaluation Findings Project Team Reflections Unfortunately most of the tutorial staff only attended the training sessions, with only two engaging in using the ePortfolio, themselves. Time factors including workload and assessment marking were important considerations for the tutors. As they did not have time to practice using the Mahara ePortfolio platform, their confidence suffered and they gave up trying. Several staff identified that the ePortfolio did not have the same priority for them, as it was not a summative requirement for students. Despite this the tutorial staff could see the benefit for using the ePortfolio and were supportive of introducing ePortfolio into the programme the following academic year. The key consideration was that the ePortfiolo platform was introduced early and linked initially to formative activities before being used for any summative assessments. Tutorial staff were clear that training and support needed to be well planned and ongoing. Tutorial staff considered the benefits of introducing the ePortfolio slowly over three years, thus allowing students and tutorial staff to get used to the technology and how it is used in a staged and well managed process. This gradual introduction would also allow the ePortfolio to be linked to increasingly complex activities over the three years, as students and staff confidence develops in using the ePortfolio. Other benefits that the staff could see for using ePortfolio were that students have more control over how they used their ePortfolios, rather than the current prescribed hard copy portfolios that students were required to submit. The project team identified that a lack of a shared understanding of the place of summative assessment and portfolios in general was also identified as something that needs to be worked through to ensure clarity for both students and staff. The project team were also clear that the ePortfolio needs to add value to the student learning journey, not just be added on top of what is already a full learning workload. How the ePortfolio is used needs to be aligned with the programme’s curriculum philosophy, evidence based and purposeful. The actual platform of Mahara was hotly debated between the project team, as it is in the literature. The choice of Mahara as a platform we believe was a good one, however there are issues that need to be addressed by the organisation, relating to upgrading the current software, hosting and working out how students will access as an alumni. Student Evaluations Out of 30 students across year one and two, only two students had actively used the ePortfolio, one from each year of the programme. One theme identified was lack of motivation (n=18), with many having valid reasons for not finding the motivation to engage with the ePortfolio: • Not important; No urgency • Too occupied with other stuff • Lack of understanding of Mahara • Don’t know what to use it for, limited understanding • Stressed out about the exams • It did not seem like much of a priority • Access (n=8), with these students identifying that they could only access the internet at school or through the local library as could not afford [the internet] at home Students identified that the timing of the ePortfolio introduction was not the best for them (n=15), most identified that it would be better to introduce the ePortfolio much earlier in the programme. Training (n=12) was another theme, along with allowing plenty of time for the students to ‘play’ before they were required to use the ePortfolio more formally. • Introduction and regular follow up sessions… lunctimes; have more sessions • Sessions to play and familiarise • Make it compulsory (n=5) Another theme was for tutors to ensure repetition/reminders (n=10) in regard to using the ePortfolio. One student identified a interesting way to improve use: “make an app so it can be accessed easily through the phone and iPad”. Discussion The ePortfolio was introduced to students during the second semester and just prior to their going on clinical placement. This was the case for both Year One and Two students. The timing of this was not ideal. Students had a variety of assessments and exams that they were working on at that time and this was identified as a barrier to them finding the time to use the ePortfolio. This was reinforced by the tutorial staff, who also stated that the timing was not ideal as they too had assignments to mark and clinical assessments to complete and therefore they did not really engage with using the ePortfolio. Both tutorial staff and students could however see the benefit of using ePortfolio, once they have had time to understand and integrate them into their programme. Peakcock, Gordon, Murray, Morss and Dunlop (2010) described faculty barriers to the implementation of ePortfolios as including limited understanding of the tool, and “initiative fatigue” (p. 827). With any requirement to implement this type of change there needs to be staff development and support from the institution. This “initiative fatigue” was a factor in this project, both tutorial staff and students felt as though it was one more thing on top of what was an already busy workload. It is clear from the literature that the place of the ePortfolio in assessment needs to be further articulated as to whether the ePortfolio is the assessment or a repository for assessment artefacts, of which components can be used for assessment purposes. The notion of ePortfolio as assessment was debated, both between the project team and other interested colleagues. There were mixed understandings of how ePortfolio and assessment should be aligned. The critical issue here appears to be how the ePortfolio is aligned with both the assessment, the curriculum and its overarching philosophy. Bright (2016) explored the relationship between ePortfolio’s (using Mahara as the platform), social constuctivism and assessment. His analysis supported the need for ePortfolios to be introduced and supported by a software platform that was “mindful of the underpinning pedagogical theory” (p. 33). Bright went on to say that when our pedagogy, platform and learning activities are aligned, the learning experience is more meaningful. This alignment needs to be considered and clearly articulated before any ePortfolio is widely implemented. Next steps A proposal for wider implementation of ePortfolio has been submitted, as outlined in Figure 1. The nursing programme will explore in more details how ePortfolio can be incorporated into their curriculum to ensure alignment and added value. Introduction of the ePortfolio will see a gradual aligning with formative assessment processes initially, allowing students and staff to become familiar and confident with the electronic platform before it is used for summative assessment purposes. Once they are comfortable, each programme will add further complexity as students progress through the levels. Year One Year Two Year Three • Semester One - Introduce Mahara ePortfolio for reflections and formative assessments • Semester Two - add summative clinical competencies assessment • Formative and Summative clinical competency assessment and reflective activities (individual and group) • Start to develop continuing professional development pages • Introduce curriculum vitae activities • Summative clinical competency assessments and poster presentations At each stage of introduction the programme staff will review how the ePortfolio continues to support student learning, rather than just adding to their workload. Further evaluations will be undertaken once the ePortfolio is introduced in order to continue growing our understanding of ePortfolio as a learning tool in undergraduate nursing education. Conclusion The benefit of introducing ePortfolio’s into an undergraduate nursing degree is that the ePortfolio can follow the student to subsequent years of education, building one repository to show the student’s development over time. The ePortfolio can than follow the student once they graduate and into their employment, where portfolios evidencing competence are, and will continue to be, required. Literature supports this, along with supporting the student to develop critical reflection and writing skills through the use of an ePortfolio. The aim of this project was to identify educationally sound strategies for supporting tutorial staff with the integration of ePortfolios into an undergraduate nursing degree. The key findings were directly related to ensuring that ePortfolios align with curriculum, add value and are purposeful. And that training and support for the introduction of ePortfolio, needs to timely and ongoing with both students and tutorial staff. This needs to be considered as a priority in the role out of ePortfolio to ensure that staff understand the rationale and can see the benefit of incorporating something new (or different) into the curriculum. Oermann, M. H. (2002). Developing a Professional Portfolio. Orthopaedic Nursing, 21(2), 73–78. Retrieved from http://www.nursing-informatics.com/Oermann.pdf Peakcock. S., Gordon, L., Murray, S, Morss, K. & Dunlop, G. (2010). Tutor response to implementating an ePortfolio to support learning and personal development in further and higher education in Scotland. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(5), 827-851. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8535.2009.00986.x Romova, Z. & Andrew, M. (2011). Teaching and assessing academic writing via the portfolio: Benefits for learners of English as an additional language. Assessing Writing, 16(2), 111-122. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.02.005 Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. England: SAGE. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Open Praxis, vol. 9 issue 2, April–June 2017, pp. 253–263 (ISSN 2304-070X) Digital Learning in Higher Education: A Training Course for Teaching Online - Universidade Aberta, Portugal José António Moreira , Susana Henriques , Maria de Fátima Goulão & Daniela Barros Universidade Aberta (Portugal) , , & This paper uses qualitative evidence to describe, explore and discuss the progress of the online teaching training course taught at the Universidade Aberta to Portuguese and foreign professors of higher education institutions. As this is an entirely online course, its pedagogical design results from the combination of the basics of open distance education and network education using the Moodle 2.0 platform and other digital environments. The results point, on one hand, to a dynamic pedagogical design that addresses the need for continuous improvement, and, on the other hand, to the changes in the role of professors in virtual teaching and learning environments, and to the different and specific pedagogical strategies in need of adjustment. They also point to the strong presence of technological and pedagogical elements of innovation. Keywords: Higher Education; Online Teaching; Open Distance Education; Networking; Innovation; Teacher Training Introduction The rapid and profound changes in today’s network societies pose challenges and demands that need to be addressed in time by individuals and institutions. Lifelong learning and life wide learning have become essential and, in this context, Distance Learning and eLearning have an increasingly more important role to play in providing answers to those needs. As a consequence, higher education institutions have been implementing forms of teaching and learning that include online education, with the purpose of diversifying their educational offer and reaching new audiences. This brings profound changes to face-to-face teaching practices that seek to include typical distance learning approaches. However, this is a greater challenge that is not going to materialize by simply transposing the faceto-face teaching practices to network virtual environments, but rather imposes changes supported by research in teaching practices in virtual environments to enable us to integrate contemporary and emerging models that characterize the teaching and learning digital territories. The results of the study on distance learning carried out by the Observatory of the Quality of Distance Learning and eLearning in Portugal have revealed a wide variety of distance learning forms and practices, and the absence of groundwork thought in this field in the respondent higher education institutions (Dias et al., 2015). This diversity can be put down to two factors: the lack of public regulation and the lack of professor’s training. In Portugal, Universidade Aberta (UAb) is the only public distance higher education institution, with almost 30 years of experience and production of knowledge and innovation in the field of online network distance education. Aware of its social responsibility as a leading pioneer institution in this area in Portugal, it was felt that it would have to give an active contribution to the globalisation processes of education, arising from the profound technological advancements in recent decades that have had a considerable impact on the distance learning and network systems. Universidade Aberta has, therefore, taken on a collaborative role in sharing and putting its strategies on the renewal of pedagogical thought to the use of higher education institutions –traditionally steered to face-to-face education–, an essential condition to act in virtual learning contexts (Dias, 2015). In this environment of support-oriented cooperation with institutions in Portuguese-speaking states and countries which seek to develop distance learning models, the authors of this paper –professors at the Department of Education and Distance Learning of Universidade Aberta– were asked to design the Online Teachers Training Course (CFDO). This course follows the Virtual Pedagogical Model® of UAb (Pereira, Mendes, Morgado, Amante & Bidarra, 2007), specifically designed for virtual teaching and based on the principles of interaction, student-centred learning, flexibility and digital inclusion. Our paper aims to describe, explore and discuss the progress of the course taught along its various editions. Although the quality of the course is constantly monitored, with six editions having been completed, we believe we now have consistent results to serve as the basis for analyzing aspects such as the pedagogical design of the course, the critical issues on the quality of online teacher training, and on the pedagogical innovation in digital territories. Our work will, therefore, build on these three perspectives to expand on theoretical issues and achieve empirical observation, as shown below. Theoretical perspectives In this study, the three-pronged analytical model breaks down the data on the online teacher training course which, although analytically different, are closely interlinked. These perspectives are: the pedagogical design of the course; the critical issues on the quality of online teacher training; and the pedagogical innovation in digital territories. First, we will briefly review the theoretical characterization of each perspective, emphasising, as already mentioned, that we will go into more detail when discussing the results. The first perspective refers to the online teaching and learning processes in higher education. Where it relates to professor’ training, this becomes a particularly challenging exercise, as it requires specific innovative models, methodologies and strategies. This means that special attention must be given to the pedagogical design. For the online teacher training course, we chose to follow a “contextualized institutional design” (Filatro, 2004), in other words, with dynamic and recursive characteristics in which the design, objectives, development, implementation and assessment unfold in a spiral. It should be made clear that we recognise the term ‘pedagogical design’ as being the most appropriate, as we believe it gives an idea of a more constructivist and humanistic teaching and learning process, therefore this is the reason why we will use it. This concept –pedagogical design– has been addressed by many authors (Ling & Marton, 2012; Häkkinen & Hänämäläinen, 2012) . In the context of a dynamic pedagogical design, participants are involved in processes of “research and training” (Macedo, 2006; Reiser & Dempsey, 2007; Silva, 2015). That is, the educational process and the change in practices encompass a questioning, critical and investigative attitude. The main challenge is, therefore, to develop a educational offer defined by a pedagogical design that combines resources and technologies with the search for knowledge and understanding, capable of developing skills to allow all participants to become better pedagogical designers. One of these digital tools is the ePortfolio, which collects the compiled works on a webpage with links to other Internet resources (Moreira, 2010). Helen Barrett says “an ePortfolio (electronic portfolio) is an electronic collection of evidence that shows your learning journey over time” (2010, p. 6). Like Moreira and Ferreira (2011), it is also our opinion that ePortfolios or digital portfolios have a wealth of potential, as they can include static or animated images, videos and music to complement and enrich the text. The use of hyperlinks to other documents or to resources available online also enhance the ePortfolio and, at the same time, emphasize the constant dynamics of knowledge and learning, which are of the utmost importance in our society today. The second perspective of analysis concerns the critical issues of quality of online teacher training. The purpose of monitoring the quality of contextualized pedagogical design is to promote the knowledge about teaching and learning processes in an integrated manner, in a sense of continuous improvement (Filatro, 2004). This knowledge is intended to contribute to the development of organizational strategies in higher education, as we believe that more important than discussing face-to-face, semi-distance, or distance teaching courses, we need to discuss what type of education we want and what strategies are under way so that it can be achieved with excellent quality standards. Although quality is a subjective concept that cannot be directly benchmarked, it has received much attention from researchers (see, for example, the works of Lim, Lee & Nam, 2007) and international institutions (for e.g., the European Quality Observatory). Ensuring an appropriate control and monitoring of the critical issues of online teacher training presupposes, in this context, paying systematic attention to and critically reflecting on the information obtained throughout the pedagogical design process, and also using that information to improve the quality of resources, e-activities and learning environments (Romiszowski, 2004). Finally, the third perspective of analysis relates to the pedagogical innovation in digital territories, which presupposes that changes in culture and knowledge are supported by research in educational practices in virtual territories, where collaboration, social and cognitive roots and pedagogical mediation are the main means to achieve sustainable network learning. Such pedagogical innovation is based on a change of educational paradigm, characterised by connectivity, flexibility, personalisation, speed and fluency, and by the use of open resources and social networks. To operate in teaching and learning scenarios in networked knowledge societies, the nature and requirements of professor’ training will have to take into consideration the training of competences with a view to inclusion, participation and collaboration in the joint construction of new knowledge (Dias, 2012). In other words, the scenarios that emerge from network learning go far beyond technological expertise, in that technologies themselves do not call to action, but provide a sustainable change for innovative and creative knowledge, supported by pedagogical dynamics that foster valuable opportunities for “learning to be and learning to learn” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Massano & Henriques, 2016). Pedagogical innovation in digital territories involves the development of skills in critical and creative problem solving, communication, sharing and collaboration, and relevant knowledge. These skills presuppose a particular focus on course pedagogical design, especially the critical issues of the quality of online teacher training. Before analyzing and discussing the data, a number of methodological issues need clarification. Material and Methods The main aim of this paper is to describe, explore and discuss the progress of the online teacher training course taught at Universidade Aberta to Portuguese and foreign professors of higher education institutions. As this is an entirely online course, its pedagogical design results from the combination of the basics of open distance education and network education (Dias, 2015; Aires, 2016) using the Moodle 2.0 platform customized according to the principles of the Virtual Pedagogical Model® of UAb, and other digital environments and tools. The Virtual Pedagogical Model was specifically designed for the teaching and learning processes at UAb and is based on the following key principles (Pereira et al., 2007): i) Student-centered learning, making students actively responsible for their knowledge building process. ii) Education based on the flexibility of access to learning (contents and activities), without time or space constraints, according to the students’ availability. This principle is materialized by prioritizing asynchronous communication, in which space and time do not have to coincide, since communication and interaction is made whenever it is convenient for the trainee, allowing him/ her to read, process the information, think about it, and engage in a dialogue or interact. iii) Education based on diversified interaction between student-professor and student-student, or even between the student and the resources. According to this principle, the professor has various communication devices to plan and design according to his/her pedagogical strategy. iv) Education that promotes digital inclusion, in that it helps adults (students) access and master technologies, who might not otherwise be able to develop those skills. In this model the student is integrated in a learning community that develops pedagogical thinking, as a result of the participation and collaboration in the joint construction of learning (Henriques, Moreira, Goulão & Barros, 2016; Goulão & Henriques, 2015). The nature of this issue led us to consider an approach like Design Based Research (DBR), which relies on the concept of design experiments. According to Wang and Hannafin (2005), this research methodology in education enables an accurate and reflexive research to test and develop innovative learning environments. This methodology seeks to study educational problems in real contexts of pedagogical activity, combining theory and practice through collaboration between researchers and professional. The DBR is based on epistemology considerations that consider that the main goal of the research is to solve real problems, and at the same time it allows the construction of design principles that can influence future decisions. The study approach is qualitative and is based on data from the six editions of the online teaching training course already completed. The instruments that served as a basis for data collection were an online questionnaire survey and an information registration grid. Analysis of results and discussion The purpose of the online teacher training course methodology is to develop students’ pedagogical, technological and digital literacy skills. As the target audience is student professors of higher education institutions, it is important that they acquire these skills and, at the same time, be prepared for developing their own students’ scientific, technological and digital literacy skills in virtual teaching and learning contexts. Several changes were introduced in the various previous editions with a view to innovative colearning design (Henriques, Moreira, Goulão & Barros, 2015). This means that the pedagogical design of the CFDO is dynamic, in that it integrates changes, adaptations and innovations in its overall structure and in the strategies of each course module. Some of these changes include, in particular, the increased use of Open Educational Resources and free access social web software, which allowed for adjustments to the educational ecosystems built and designed by the course professors in each module; and the introduction of an ePortfolio built by the trainees, also using web 2.0 software, aggregating all the work carried out in the various course modules. This ePortfolio has three distinct and complementary functions: i) The professors monitor the ePortfolio and assess it as to its contents. ii) The trainees add their own thoughts about their training path to the contents and resources. iii) Ultimately, the ePortfolio is an important working tool for the trainees, who, as professors, will have an archive of materials (contents, resources, e-activities) and their own thoughts on their own development (progress and setbacks, difficulties and strategies to overcome them, strengths and areas for improvement). The results of the analysis of the pedagogical design of the online teacher training course point to adjustments needed to strengthen the approach to professional academic contexts, that is, the opportunities for continuous improvement are directly related with the skills to be developed. We therefore need to describe the structure of the course under analysis (Figure 1). The course load is 10 ECTS (European Credit Transfer Credit System) over 17 weeks of training, preceded by an online adaptation module lasting 2 weeks that has a two-fold purpose. On one hand, it is intended to familiarise students with the learning environment and with the Virtual Pedagogical Model® of Universidade Aberta. On the other hand, the purpose is for the students to get used to being online students and to acquire the basic skills to attend the course. In addition to the adaptation module, there is also a cross-cutting module of digital tools that accompanies the student throughout the whole course, aiming to help the student explore and use different softwares, applications and Web 2.0 interfaces. The Digital Literacy module covers two main topics –Communication and Online learning–, which address the communication and interaction processes and the individual needs of each student, and the topic of digital literacies, which refers to the digital skills needed in ubiquitous learning contexts. Module 2 –Innovation and Network Pedagogies– covers two main topics: Emerging Pedagogies, which focuses on theories of learning underlying Web 2.0-based pedagogical approaches; and Web Applications and Interactive Technologies, which explores the potential of pedagogical use of some Web 2.0 and social networks text, image and sound editing tools. The third module, Online Pedagogical Scenarios, covers three topics: Principles for the Design of Online Courses, which focuses on some essential components and principles in the design of online courses; E-activities, which focuses on the structure required for an active and interactive online training that caters for the students’ different ways of learning; and the topic Online Assessment Practices, which systematizes the challenges, contexts and assessment practices in online learning environments. Finally, the Project module, organized around the main axes behind an online course – planning, project, design, and development. In all these modules, innovation also arises from the articulation between the various technological platforms used and the social web softwares, in a Blended (e)Learning system that make the educational experience even more meaningful. Each module was structured by professors with expertise in the field, who work at the Department of Education and Distance Learning of Universidade Aberta, using pedagogical strategies that include findings from recent research in the field of online pedagogy. Moreover, expert professors of recognised merit in the areas, of universities from different countries and invited by the UAb also collaborated in each of the modules. The course trainees are professors who work at higher education institutions in Portugal and in other Portuguese speaking countries. One of the course’s innovative factors is precisely that this training is intended for a group of trainees who are professors in higher education, where requirements are centred on scientific competence in a specific area of knowledge at the expense of pedagogical competences. The fact that this course promotes dynamics of interaction and collaboration between higher education professors based on the development of educational competences for online teaching makes this course truly unique. Some of these dynamics include the e-Portfolio referred to earlier, which made it possible to develop competences related to an active, constructivist, interactive and strongly collaborative learning. Note that this is the current structure of the course, which has been changed and adapted since its early version consisting of 8 modules, until this latest version, which responds more adequately to the challenges and requirements of a course of this nature (Henriques et al., 2015). The challenge has to do with the activities that will enable the training of pedagogical designers and giving them the means for becoming more efficient in pedagogical design. As argued by Hasan and Laaser (2010), higher education institutions are faced with needs that fall outside their traditional research, professional development and personal education competences. They must search for options for new audiences to be better prepared to respond to the new reality of our students (connectivity, speed, and space and time facilities) and also to ensure that such a response will help promote lifelong learning, but without compromising the quality of higher education. These changes have, of course, implications for the professor, whose role now has been redefined and its duties call for the development of more complex professional skills. Chang, Shen and Liu (2014) point to the changes that an online training environment causes to the interactions between professor, student and content, and that professors are expected to take on a more facilitating approach. The teaching activity now consists of planning, resources and communication, and the professor’s role is reflected in the teaching, socialisation, management and integration of technologies (Goulão, 2012; Berge, 2001), and should promote the development of strategies that will lead to an active and independent learning process, in networked collaborative and co-learning environments. It should be noted that in this course these professors take the role of students and that the virtual learning environments promote a more active role of these students while they build their own knowledge. This system is more effective in responding to the specific characteristics of learners, in particular their learning style. This also means that the formal virtual space must be organised in terms of type of learning materials and activities made available, which should be diversified so as to cater for the different learning styles of learners. The works by Azevedo and Cromley (2004) draw attention to the implications that the pedagogical design of virtual learning environments have in the acquisition of knowledge, and that must also be taken into consideration throughout the course by the students, seeing that they are also professors. The students’ opinions are collected in their individual e-portfolio, prepared from the moment they attend the CFDO. The e-portfolio enhances collaborative, network and lifelong learning. Sá-Chaves (2007) highlights 4 key characteristics of e-portfolios: 1) formative (by grasping the complexity of the training process in a contextualised way, it allows us to understand, in time and context, each part as being of interest to the process); 2) continuous (by grasping the dynamics of how the trainee’s personal knowledge increases); 3) reflexive (as the metacognitive reflection generates knowledge to allow the student to act in practical contexts or in contexts about itself); 4) comprehensive (by grasping the evolution of knowledge over time). We also add the focus on sharing and interaction, in particular between peers, creating new learning opportunities, allowing assessments and comments on the work done, which can be an added incentive (Amante, 2011). As Barberà and Ahumada (2007) state, the e-portfolio is a dynamic place where the processes of teaching, assessment and students’ personal development converge. Due to its characteristics, the e-portfolio provides important information for the analysis of the critical issues of quality in online teacher training. From the aspects shown in most e-portfolios we highlight interactivity and collaboration, as they help to shape the construction of knowledge in virtual environments. These are referred to as being both an advantage and a disadvantage. While the advantages are more obvious, relating to the professional and personal development in a collaborative way, and have a broad theoretical basis (Moreira, Ferreira & Almeida, 2013; Dias, 2008; 2012; Oliveira, Tinoca & Pereira, 2011), the disadvantages relate mainly to the need to adapt to work routines, organisation and construction of knowledge different to those that students are used to – both as students and as professors. In respect of the analysis and discussion of quality-related issues, an explanation must be given on some of the model’s details and on the CFDO quality indicators. The latter is directed to the quality of educational processes, and is assumed to strongly influence the learning outcomes manifested in the desired skills. The purpose is to respond to a continuing need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of answers, identifying, in due time, the functional weaknesses or the opportunities for innovation, while maintaining a relevant position in the current competitive market of specialised qualifications. The model used contains process indicators (pedagogical design and others), instruments for collecting and monitoring information (survey questionnaire, information registration grid) and data analysis tools designed for the construction of knowledge, innovation and continuous improvement of quality based on scientific evidence (Henriques et al., 2016). In this phase, we should look at the weaknesses, strengths and opportunities for improvement mentioned by the students in the various spaces and at various moments of interaction. One of the most relevant weaknesses is the lack of time to do the e-activities, especially when a balance must be achieved between work, family responsibilities and other daily business and the course requirements. Note that the professors responsible for the modules had also stressed the difficulty in meeting the deadlines. This is a central issue in eLearning theory and research (Hasan & Laaser, 2010; Henriques & Seabra, 2012). Besides the time aspect, another weakness found is that some of the digital tools are difficult to use. Although technologies are always part of our daily life, digital literacy levels are low and some people find it difficult to master the basics of technologies, even more than we would expect in a group formed by higher education professors. This seems to be related with some difficulty in managing individuals with this social profile and highly demanding levels. Generally speaking, the attitude of classroom professors to online teaching can condition the entire personal and institutional strategy to embrace this form of teaching (McCarthy & Samors, 2009; Martinho & Jorge, 2016). To reduce the negative impact of more antagonist attitudes to distance learning, some authors suggest the development of training actions that associate the pedagogical and technological components, in order to enable professors to work successfully in virtual teaching contexts and networkbased learning (Martinho & Jorge, 2016; Allen & Seaman, 2011; Oncu & Cakir, 2010). As for the strengths identified by the trainees, the data collected show that the pedagogical design of the course is appropriate and its contents are both innovative and challenging. Interaction and support were also highlighted. The issues referred to by the students reveal a reflexive process associated with professional development (Goulão & Barros, 2014). Some students even defend that all higher education professors should attend the CFDO. Finally, as regards the opportunities for improvement, we note the issues related to the proper management of time, to a greater concern with the usability of some technologies, and the increased interaction and feedback from peers, and between professor-students. The serious review of opportunities for improvement presented has allowed the introduction of new features to the course under analysis, in particular in terms of structure and pedagogical design, as already mentioned. These innovations introduced arise from a great deal of reflection on the teaching-learning practices in which professors find support and inspiration, resulting in the creation of knowledge networks and collaborative work, the development of processes that facilitate learning, with implications in the organisational sustainability of the higher education institutions involved. The focus on innovation involves making learning tools and resources available, creating environments conducive to knowledge, generating new learning partnerships, and anticipating innovative scenarios to generate change. Moreover, we need to continue to experiment, accepting that errors are an opportunity for learning and incorporating the views of the various stakeholders (Collins & Porras, 2002). We therefore see innovation as the search for critical and creative solutions to solve problems, in order to adapt to the future. Accordingly, innovative knowledge is characterised by being challenging, transformative, practical, an instrument of power, liberating, interpretative, contextualised, reflexive, critical, collaborative, open, interdisciplinary, dynamic, questionable (inter)subjective, and argumentative. To train professors to create online courses and to teach online higher education courses implies developing skills so that they can be critical and reflexive, can question the purpose and contents of teaching and its practice, and produce new knowledge towards pedagogical renewal, in the classroom and in the transformation of his/her peers. Conclusions The online teacher training course is centred on the use of networks for developing learning spaces. To that end, spaces other than the Moodle platform were used for contacts, interaction and socialising. For example, social networks such as Facebook, Twitter or SOL (academic social network created by Universidade Aberta, Portugal). To facilitate the collaboration between students and professors, social web tools and Pedagogy 2.0 were also used to promote collaborative work, in spaces where they could “breathe”, without any barriers and physical or virtual walls. Pedagogy 2.0 is understood as the art or science of teaching using web 2.0 tools and is based on the intersection of three elements: Participation in network communities, Personalisation of learning experience, and Productivity related to knowledge creation (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007). In short, the results obtained point to some weaknesses related to time management and to the difficulty in using some digital tools. The strengths relate to the pedagogical design of the course, in particular: How contents and resources are made available and organised. The dynamic and collaborative interactions with the web tools and the virtual environment, mobilized in coordination with the customized Moodle platform of UAb. - The students’ critical authorship based on the learning experience. - The co-learning work between students and professor, supported by a participatory pedagogy. - The online communication adapted to end-users from various Portuguese-speaking States and territories. The dynamic and flexible structure of the CFDO’s pedagogical design is open to receive the results of the assessment and research produced in each course edition, as well as the technological and pedagogical innovations and good practices in the field of distance education and network education. By using a sharing and collaborative network, online teaching enriches the virtual communities and the co-authorship processes and, at the same time, provides and adopts unique actions. It therefore allows global and local ties to be established between the participants, fostering innovation in higher education, seen as a number of changes that affect its strategic perspectives. Despite the current situation of social and economic decline, there is an increasing openness of the national, European and transnational higher education system. At the same time, inequalities are more accentuated. While the experience of creating the European area for higher education is being critically reviewed, it seems difficult to forecast when learning distance education will be regulated in Portugal, in particular higher education. The various national and European university cultures have gradually embraced the idea that the university is a hub in the global network for the production, reproduction and preservation of knowledge, and is not longer an independent centre for the production and dissemination of knowledge (Teixeira, 2012). Against this background, we share the idea put forward by Teixeira (2012) when he defends that networked sharing of resources actually allows the increase of innovation and, consequently, fosters it. References Aires, L. (2016). e-Learning, Online Education and Open Education: A Contribution to a Theoretical Approach. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19(1), 253–269. http://dx.doi. org/10.5944/ried.19.1.14356 Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in United States. Bason Survey Research Group. Amante, L. (2011). A avaliação das aprendizagens em contexto online, In P. Dias & A. Osório (Eds.). Aprendizagem (In)Formal na Web Social (pp. 221–236). Braga: Centro de competência da Universidade do Minho. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J., (2004). Does training on self –regulated learning facilitate student’s learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535. Barberà, E., & Ahumada, M. (2007). Assessment of Research Competences Using e-Portfolio. In U. Bernath & A. Sangrà (Eds.). Research on Competence Development in Online Distance Education and E-learning (pp. 213–225). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl Von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Barrett, H. (2010). Balancing the Two Faces of ePortfolios. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias, 3(1), 6–14. [Online]. Retrieved from http://eft.educom.pt Berge, Z. L. (2001). New roles for learners and teachers in online education. Retrieved from https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/254272008_NEW_ROLES_FOR_LEARNERS_AND_TEACHERS_IN_ONLINE_HIGHER_EDUCATION Chang, C., Shen, H-Y. & Liu, E.Z-F. (2014). University faculty’s perspectives on the roles of e-instructors and their online instruction practices. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 72–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1654 Collins, J., & Porras, J. (2002). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business Essentials. McCarthy, S., & Samors, R. J. (2009). Online Learning as a Strategic Asset. Washington DC: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Martinho D., & Jorge, I. (2016). The constraints of face-to-face higher education teachers about the adoption of online learning. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19(1), 161–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.19.1.13996 Massano, L., & Henriques, S. (2016). Liderança e aprendizagem em ambientes e dLearning. In L. Miranda, P. Alves, & C. Morais (Eds.). VII Congresso Mundial de Estilos de Aprendizagem: livro de atas (pp. 1966–1974). Bragança: Instituto Politécnico. Retrieved from http://repositorioaberto. uab.pt//handle/10400.2/5474 Moreira, J. (2010). Portefólio do professor: O portefólio no desenvolvimento profissional. Porto: Porto Editora. Moreira, J., & Ferreira, M. J. (2011). Webfolios reflexivos: contributos para o desenvolvimento profissional do professor. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias, 4(2), 61–75. Retrieved from http://eft. educom.pt/index.php/eft/article/viewFile/255/146 Moreira, J. A., Ferreira, A. G., & Almeida, A. C. (2013). Comparing communities of inquiry in higher education students: one for all or one for each? Open Praxis, 5(2), 165–178. http://dx.doi. org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.2.50 Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: how to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1348–1357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.017 Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2010). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computer & Education, 57(1), 1098–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009 Pereira, A., Mendes, A., Morgado, L., Amante, L., & Bidarra, J. (2007). Modelo Pedagógico Virtual da Universidade Aberta. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/LeQTKX Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2007). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Romiszowski, H. (2004). Avaliação do design instrucional e qualidade da educação a distância: qual a relação? Revista Brasileira de Aprendizagem Aberta e a Distância, 1, 1–7. Sá-Chaves, I. (2007). Portfolios Reflexivos - Estratégia de Formação e de Supervisão. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. Silva, M. (2015). Formação de professores para a docência online. Santo Tirso: WhiteBooks. Teixeira, A. (2012). Desconstruindo a universidade: Modelos universitários emergentes mais abertos, flexíveis e sustentáveis. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 32, 1–13. Retrieved from http:// www.um.es/ead/red/32 Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02504682 Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License OPEN PRAXIS Anderson , D. ( 2010 ). The effects of blogging and electronic journaling on writing skills development in high school freshmen . Unpublished Thesis , United States: Walden University. Andre , K. & Heartfield , M. ( 2007 ). Professional portolios: Evidence of competency for nurses and midwives . Marrickville, Australia: Elsevier. Andrews , T. , & Cole , C. ( 2015 ). Two steps forward, one step back: The intricacies of engaging with eportfolios in nursing undergraduate education . Nurse Education Today , 35 ( 4 ), 568 - 572 . http:// doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt. 2014 . 12 .011 Bright , S. ( 2016 ). ePortfolios, social constructivism and assessment: A match made in heaven . In N. Wright (Ed.). DEANZ Biennial Conference (pp. 30 - 34 ). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato. Curtis , R. S. ( 2012 ). Learning and Assessment : The Application of ePortfolios . Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice , 12 ( 3 ), 66 - 74 . Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/ JHETP/curtis_abstract.html Garrett , B. M. , MacPhee , M. , & Jackson , C. ( 2013 ). Evaluation of an eportfolio for the assessment of clinical competence in a baccalaureate nursing program . Nurse Education Today , 33 ( 10 ), 1207 - 1213 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt. 2012 . 06 .015 Green , J. , Wyllie , A. , & Jackson , D. ( 2014 ). Electronic portfolios in nursing education: A review of the literature . Nurse Education in Practice , 14 ( 1 ), 4 - 8 . http://doi.org/10.1016/j. nepr. 2013 . 08 .011 McMullan , M. ( 2005 ). Students' perceptions on the use of portfolios in pre-registration nursing education: A questionnaire survey . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 43 ( 3 ), 333 - 343 . http:// doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu. 2005 . 05 .005 Nielsen , K. , Pedersen , B. D. , & Helms , N. H. ( 2015 ). EPortfolio and learning styles in clinical nursing education . Journal of Nursing Education and Practice , 5 ( 9 ), 54 - 62 . http://doi.org/10.5430/jnep. v5n9p54


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://www.openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/viewFile/690/336

Inés Gil-Jaurena (ed.), various authors. Open Praxis, volume 9 issue 2, Open Praxis, 2017, 121-263, DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.690