Chrissi Nerantzi's presentation of her #PhD research at the 6th GO-GN Seminar in Cape Town, March 5th-6th, 2017.

1. a PhD study by Chrissi Nerantzi to be completed in 2017
Towards a cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework for
cross-institutional academic development
Progress made, GO-GN event, Cape Town, South Africa, March 2017
Proud member of the…

2. Please comment on:
• Clarity of
information about
the study
• Contribution to
knowledge
• Timelines (in pack)
The menu
1. An overview of my research questions
2. How I am approaching the methodology
3. What has been my progress so far
4. Any issues I have encountered
5. Specific areas I would like to get feedback on

3. year 1: my
first baby
steps
the journey
continues...
Year 2:
turning into a
toddler
the journey
continues...
Year 3:
maturing
emotionally
the journey
must end this
year... Year 5:
a teenager…
from 4 to 14,
this is how it
feels
3. What has been my progress so far
2nd
full
draft
Jan
2017

4. • RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic
development courses that have been designed to
provide opportunities for collaborative learning
experienced by learners?
• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional
academic development courses most strongly influence
learners' experience and how?
• RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and
RQ2, what could be the key features of a proposed
collaborative open learning framework for open cross-
institutional academic development courses?
1. An overview of my research questions

5. 2. How I am approaching the methodology

6. Initial survey,
19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey,
11 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(main data collection method)
Pool 1
Course
4 categories of
description
Pool 3
Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 2
Boundary crossing
4 categories of
description
Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)
Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2
#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+
Surveys
findings
Two surveys,
(collective case study
data collection method)
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
RQ1
and
RQ2
Disc.
Open-
ness in
HE
Digital
tech and
frame-
works
Learning
with
others in
groups
Academic
development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning

7. Case study 2
https://courses.p2pu.org/en/courses/261
5/creativity-for-learning-in-higher-
education/
Creativity for Learning in HE
by Chrissi Nerantzi for CELT,
MMU is licensed under
a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License.
Case study 1
https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/
PBL Negotiated
Groups supported by
facilitators

8. Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Constructing the collective case study
Initial survey data about study participants ( n = 25)
Sweden,
Canada,
Norway,
Uganda

9. Open learning as course organisation (C1.1)
Open learning as
a facilitated ex.
(C1.2)
Open learning as
an activity-based
ex. (C1.3)
Open learning as
designed for
collaboration (C1.4)
Cross-
boundary
learning
through
modes of
partici-
pation
(C2.1)
Cross-
boundary
learning
through
time,
places
and
space
(C2.2)
Cross-
boundary
learning
through
diverse
pro-
fessional
contexts
(C2.4)
Cross-
boundary
learning
through
culture
and
language
(C2.3)
Structuralfactors(AreaA)Livedexperience(AreaB)
contributing factors
Collaboration as engagement in learning (C3.1)
Selective
Immersive
Collaboration as
relationship building
(C3.3)
Group focus
Collaboration as shared
product creation (C3.2)
Process-focus
High product expectations
Individual focus Process-focus
Low product expectations

10. Cross-boundary learning
through modes of participation
… as a valued mixed mode learning
experience
… as a valued informal learning experience
… as a valued opportunity for recognition
Cross-boundary learning
through time and place
… as a continuum
… as an interruption
Cross-boundary learning
through culture and language
… as inclusion
… as exclusion
Cross-boundary learning
through mixed professional contexts
… as fertiliser
… as discomfort
POOL3:Cross-Boundaries

11. Research questions (reminder)
• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic
development courses that have been designed to
provide opportunities for collaborative learning
experienced by learners?
• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional
academic development courses most strongly influence
learners' experience and how?
• RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and
RQ2, what could be the key features of a proposed
collaborative open learning framework for open cross-
institutional academic development courses?

12. Learning in groups
Cooperative, collaborative learning and collaborative
inquiry including PBL (highly structured) (Savin-Baden,
2003)
Relationships: Social interdependence theory in
cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) also
collaborative online learning (Sharples, de Roock,
Ferguson, Gaved, Herodotou, Koh, Kukulska-Hulme, Looi,
McAndrew, Rienties, Weller & Wong, 2016)
Product vs process “learning from collaboration”
Dillenbourg (1999)
Collaborative learning as choice (Beetham, 2015)
Collaborative learning important in HE critical, creative
thinkers (Biggs & Tang, 2007)
Open learning
Exclusive and undemocratic (Lane, 2009)
Neocolonialism, English domination (Uvalic-Trumbic,
2012)
Little OER” (Weller, 2011)
Open ed creates practitioner level collaborations: share,
develop in communities (Orr, Rimini & van Damme, 2015)
democratisation of HE, opening-up HE, working with
public (Levin, 2004)
The ‘public facing open scholar’ (Coughlan & Perriman,
2012, p.2)
Diversification of participation needed (Lane, 2009)
Support models for OEP needed (including facilitation),
Lane (2009)
HE to open up and cross-institutional collaboration
(Iamorato dos Santos et al., 2016)
Digital technologies and frameworks
From Individualistic to collective participation through
social media (Conole & Alevizou, 2010)
Range of evidence-based and conceptual frameworks
with collaborative learning features (from CSCL to 5C),
none specifically for collaborative open learning but
facilitator support, community, activities and choice
important in these
Modes of interaction (media, synchronous, asynchronous)
Learners different cultural backgrounds for online
collaborative learning (Rovai, 2004)
Academic development in the UK
Competition and financial incentives for HEIs in the UK as
a driver to achieve teaching excellence (TEF, 2016a;
2016b)
CPD within institutions, perceived as top-down approach
(Crawford, 2009)
Academics want freedom: Academics want to pursue
their own interests in L&T! Academics want to be part of
networks and communities, often external/disciplinary
ones (Crawford, 2009)
Open cross-institutional collaborations increase
engagement in CPD and drive innovation in teaching
(Pawlyshyn, Braddlee, Casper & Miller, 2013)

13. 6. 1
RQ 1: How are open cross-institutional academic
development courses experienced that have been designed
to provide opportunities for collaborative learning?
6.2
RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional
academic development courses influence learners’
experience and how?
6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public)
The courses’ cross-boundary nature brought academic staff,
students, public together to learn together. Participants
were formal and informal learners from different cultures.
This diversity enriched their collaborative open learning
experience and made learning more interesting to them.
6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)
The facilitator support was vital for collaborative open
learning, to help build group relationships and resolve
technological and course issues and build peer-support
capacity. The non-directive facilitator and the facilitator as
co-learner was most welcome by participants.
6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)
Participants engaged online and offline in collaborative open
learning activities and the course. They also used their
mobile devices to connect with course activities. The offline
dimension of engagement was especially relevant for
‘selective’ collaborators and provides insights that open
learning does not exclusive happen online.
6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)
The flexibility of the collaborative open learning design,
using inquiry-based activities worked for ‘selective’ and
‘immersive’ collaborators, when this was agreed with
participants and especially when the focus of collaboration
was the process.
6.1.3 Learners as community
Especially ‘immersive ‘ collaborators were seeking to be part
of a community. They cultivated social relationships.
Synchronous social media video technologies helped them
in this process. The cross-boundary nature of the groups
was especially attractive to participants and generated
increased interest for each other.
6.2.3 Course as community
Participants saw the course as a community that continued
beyond the pre-defined timeframe. The cross-institutional
and cross-boundary dimensions of the courses, that also
brought together formal and informal learning using social
media, presents a new academic development approach
that is a continuum.

14. Learner engagement patterns
Selective collaborating Immersive collaborating
• Focus on self
• “Lives” elsewhere
• Low group product expectations
• Some small group participation
• Might use course to complement other studies, professional
recognition
• Support mainly from elsewhere
• Focus on group
• “Lives” in the group
• High group product expectations
• Might be studying towards credits on course, or professional
recognition
• Support mainly from within the group
Learner needs
Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator
Milestone cohort activities + Social relationships, community
Some small group activities + Regular buddy / small group activities
Light touch facilitation + Regular facilitation
Sporadic synchronous + Regular asynchronous and synchronous
Sporadic group purposes + Group purposes and co-creating meaning
Process + Co-created products
Design considerations
Collaborating institutions
(weak)
Organisation, and
facilitation team
Learner profiles and
cross-boundary
considerations
Learning and Teaching
approach
Group work and
community
Resources, tools and open
licensing (weak)
Accreditation / Recognition Online / Offline mode Course outcomes and
activities
Timing and
scheduling
RQ3: Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework in cross-institutional academic development (cc licence)

15. Contribution to knowledge and
practice
• Gained new insights into learner engagement
patterns in collaborative open learning
• Identified the course design characteristics
that foster cross-boundary collaborative open
learning
• Designed a cross-boundary collaborative open
learning framework for cross-institutional
academic development

16. 4. Any issues I have encountered
• Loneliness
• Wrestling with the
methodology and the
mountains of data
Connecting findings with
literature
• Being critical
• Establishing a voice
• Articulating contribution
and building confidence

18. Images
Presentation CC BY-NC
Images
• Slide 2 Manchester Metropolitan University photo from
university.which.co.uk
• Slide 2 black and white photography by Thanassis Nerantzis
• Slide 4 cc images:
– http://www.boba.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/08/Boba.BabyFeetWalking.jpg
– https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4093/4741884552_be5c88e6b9_z.jpg
– https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/6953436148_19b47d4942_z.jpg
– https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Islabikes_Cnoc_14.jp
g
– https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5655/20412359073_087389a5a4_b.jpg
• All other images are by Chrissi Nerantzi made available under CC BY-NC

19. References
Beetham, H., 2015. Developing digital know-how: building digital talent: Key issues in framing the digital capabilities of staff in UK HE and FE. Bristol: Jisc.
Accessed online from https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2015/08/5.-Report.pdf
Biggs, J. & Tang, C., 2007. Teaching for quality learning at university, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
BIS, 2016a. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility & student choice, Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BIS.
Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy.pdf on
20th May 2016.
BIS, 2016b. Teaching excellence framework: Year two specification. Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BOS. Accessed from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf on 4th October 2016.
Conole, G., 2012. E-learning in higher education, new technologies and education for multilingualism, second rectors’ conference, European parliament, Brussels,
18-19 October 2012. [keynote]. Accessed from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/interp/rectorsconference2012/docs/pdf/conole_presentation.pdf on 28th May
2016.
Conole, G. & Alevizou, P., 2010. A literature review of the use of web 2.0 tools in higher education. (HEA Report). Accessed from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf
Crawford, K., 2009. Continuing professional development in higher education: Voices from below. University of Lincoln. [EdD thesis]. Accessed from
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf on 22nd October 2013
Dillenbourg P., 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In: Dillenbourg, P., ed., 1999. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational
approaches. Oxford: Elsevier. pp.1-19. Accessed online from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.14.pdf on 26th June 2014.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into Practice. 38 (2: Building Community through Cooperative Learning). pp. 67–
73. Accessed from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405849909543834 on the 20th November 2014.
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño-Muñoz, J., 2016. Opening up Education: A support framework for higher education institutions. JRC Science for
Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN: doi: 10.2791/293408. Assessed from http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-education-institutions on 14 September 2016.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into Practice. 38 (2: Building Community through Cooperative Learning). pp. 67–
73. Accessed from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405849909543834 on the 20th November 2014.
Lane, A., 2009. The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. The international review of research in open and distance learning, 10 (5).
Accessed from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/637
Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, G., Casper, L. & Miller, H., 2013. Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation, educause review, Why IT
matters to HE. Updated 04/11/2013. Accessed from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-
innovation on 20th September 2015.
Daniel, J.S. & Uvalic-Trumbic, S., 2012. Fostering governmental support for open educational resources internationally, second regional policy forum, Africa.
Updated 27/02/2012. Accessed from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/RPF%20Africa%20final%20report.pdf
Rovai, A.P., 2004. A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and higher education, 7 pp.79-93.
Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H.,
2016. Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open university innovation report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Weller, M. 2016c. Emerging OER discipline, 7 September 2016. Accessed from http://www.slideshare.net/mweller/emerging-oer-discipline on 18 December
2016.