This presentation reports on the experiences of three faculty members designing and developing a Master’s degree in Learning and Technology when they adopted openness as a core value and key design principle. While the benefits of open textbooks and OER are compelling, little is known about programs that are designed with openness as a core value. What does it mean to embrace open practices and embody an open philosophy at the program and course level within a Master’s program? What are faculty experiences with such an approach? How can the student experience be optimized? In what ways does openness support a diverse student body? What tensions arise and what supports are required to facilitate the transition to an MA degree that not only uses open textbooks but is defined by openness?

1. Nov 4, 2016
Open Ed Conference
Jo Axe, PhD
Elizabeth Childs, PhD
George Veletsianos, PhD
PLAYING WITH JELLO: FACULTY
EXPERIENCES ADOPTING OPENNESS AS
A CORE VALUE

2. We acknowledge that
we work and live on
the ancestral lands
and unceeded
territories of the Coast
Salish families
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3. INTRODUCTIONS
Jo Axe
PhD
Associate Professor and
Director, School of
Education and Technology
George
Veletsianos
PhD
Associate Professor
Canada Research Chair in
Innovative Learning and
Technology
Elizabeth Childs
PhD
Associate Professor and
MALAT Program Head, School
of Education and Technology

4. Royal Roads University Context
• Predominantly Master’s programs
• Most programs = blended model (short residencies + fully
online); some fully online programs
• InsGtuGonal Learning and Teaching Model
• Two FaculGes
– Faculty of Social and Applied
Sciences
– Faculty of Management
• College of Interdisciplinary
Studies

5. Why Openness – Why Now?
• Timing is everything:
• MA program redesign – 5 year review
• Changing landscape of Higher Ed
• Internal champions/external push
• IntenGon
To extend the mindset of openness across a
graduate program: to model the model.
• Openness as a design principles of a MA
program (MA in Learning & Technology)
• Explicit in the program goal statement
• Central to the overall program design; take/
make courses
• Inherent in the program learning outcomes
• Embedded in each course

6. The program is founded upon principles of networked learning
and open pedagogy where students will collaborate and
contribute meaningfully to digital learning networks and
communi8es in the field.
Graduates will be able to work in the crea8on and evalua8on of
digital learning environments. Students will apply theore8cal
and prac8cal knowledge to cri8cally analyze learning innova8ons
and assess their impact on organiza8ons and society.
h?p://www.royalroads.ca/prospec8ve-students/master-arts-learning-and-technology/
program-descrip8on

7. Framing Openness – in MALAT
– Openness as a vehicle for educa.onal change - teaching
and learning environments; teaching pracGces
• Consistent with social construcGonism; construcGvism etc.
• The 5 R’s (retain, reuse, revise, remix, redistribute)
– Resources; assignments; syllabus
– Openness is a goal in itself – to be open for the benefits
and challenges we (faculty and students) can experience
from being open that go beyond saving students money.
– Consistent with the concept of expansive openness
(Kimmons, 2016)
– Levels of openness; across program/course/acGviGes/
assessment

8. Our current working definiGon…
A key tenet of open educaGon is that educa8on
can be improved by making educa8onal assets
visible and accessible and by harnessing the
collec-ve wisdom of a community of prac-ce
and reflec-on (Iiyoshi & Kumar, 2008, p. 2)

9. Masterman and Wild (2013) OER
Engagement Ladder – extended

10. Stagg (2014) ConGnuum of PracGce for
Engagement in Open EducaGon

11. A Journey into Risk
Falconer et al (2016),

12. The Forth Category:
Enhancing Pedagogy
“We view our fourth category, enhancing pedagogy, as
fundamentally different to that of producing high quality
materials efficiently or cost effecGvely, in that it is
underpinned by altruisGc posiGons rather than a business
model approach. It puts its emphasis on the value of the
OER development process, rather than on the value of the
OER content produced. (Falconer et. al., 2016. p. 99)

13. OPENNESS – A JIGGLY
SPACE

14. Openness as a conGnuum
• Program delivery decisions
– (Moodle & WP)
– Going out to ask for feedback on WP plugins
– Balancing legal requirements and design principles
• Dropbox and Google Drive as a way to share across faculty during the
development process
• YouTube channel/course – students subscribe
• Social learning tools
• Course design decisions
– Google doc collaboraGve course design
– Design teams (two faculty (core/AF) + instrucGonal designer + PH)
• Readings and resources
– open access as the default but some (seminal works) are not.

15. Openness as a ConGnuum
• Assessment – current focus of our discussion
– Post detail and assessment rubrics on course WP site
– Assessment rubrics (open? shareable?)
– Renewable assignments (briefing note example)
• Can/should every course have a renewable assignment? Is it
reasonable to expect students to do this in every course at MA
level?
• At what point do you reach saturaGon (aka discussion forums
breeding like rabbits?)
– AuthenGc assignments that give back and/or pay forward
– Feedback private (i/s; s/s) or part open (s/s; is private) fully
open both groups?

16. Emerging Themes and Current
QuesGons
• Uncertainty isn’t a bad thing – it is necessary for learning
• Model the model – tricker than it sounds
– Level of comfort for risk and change lies at the individual; program and
insGtuGonal level and all can be different and exert different pressures
– At the same Gme you can have insGtuGonal structures that are
supporGve and not supporGve
• TheoreGcally we are quesGoning - Is openness a pedagogy or
a principle?
• PracGcally we are exploring/quesGoning open assessment
(what/how much/when); how do we support learners in their
journey on the openness conGnuum?

17. Thank you & we would love
to hear from you
jo.axe@royalroads.ca
elizabeth.childs@royalroads.ca
george.veletsianos@royalroads.ca

18. References
• Falconer, I., Liqlejohn, A., McGill, L., & Beetham, H. (2016). MoGves and tensions in
the release of Open EducaGonal Resources: the JISC UKOER programme.
Australasian Journal of Educa8onal Technology, 32(4), 92–105. doi:10.14742/ajet.
2258
• Judith, K., & Bull, D. (2016). Assessing the potenGal for openness: A framework for
examining course-level OER implementaGon in higher educaGon. Educa8on Policy
Analysis Archives, 24(42). doi:10.14507/epaa.24.1931
• Masterman, L., & Wild, J. (2013). ReflecGons on the evolving landscape of OER use.
Paper presented at OER13: creaGng a virtuous circle, Notngham, UK
• Stagg, A. (2014). OER adopGon: a conGnuum for pracGce. Universi8es and
Knowledge Society Journal, 11(3), 151 – 164. doi:10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2102