Eric Werth and Katherine Williams from the University of Pikeville recorded a 2021 Lilly Conference online session entitled “Empowering Student Voice: Using Open Pedagogy to Motivate First-Year Students.” They are both in the Office of Professional Development. This topic is appropriate today because as part of the BIT SURE program, we discussed open pedagogy and open educational resources this afternoon. Werth described open pedagogy by using a definition by DeRosa and Jhangiani that focuses on an “access-oriented commitment to learner-driven education AND as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that enable students to shape the public knowledge commons of which they are a part.” Werth also defined OER-enabled pedagogy citing Wiley & Hilton. Williams compared active learning techniques and OER-enabled pedagogy. I had not thought about this. Williams mentioned that in OER-enabled pedagogy “students drive content creation or content revision (in case of remixing or revising of OERs)” and “material lives beyond the student-teacher dyad.” Additionally, Williams mentioned that the OERs may be a focus on the course and help frame it whereas active learning is a component of the course.
Werth used self-determination theory to describe motivation as extrinsic or intrinsic and autonomous or controlled. With a focus on “regulation” self-determination theory can help describe how students engage in the course and assignments. For their research, Werth and Williams discussed the study they did at their institution. The first-year seminar course is taken by every student enrolled, and they co-create a “college survival guide.” The project itself is broken into stages. For the study, they interviewed sixteen students and coded transcripts. They found code categories that aligned with extrinsic motivation internalization types (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation). For implications for practice, the presenters discussed that the OER-enabled pedagogy can “foster agency, relatedness, and competency” through choice while achieving assignment goals (self-direction), connection to instructor and students (group work, sharing ideas, peer review, constructive instructor feedback), and competency (design assignment in stages and provide feedback to maximize feeling of success and growth).
Werth and Williams stated that “open pedagogy is most effective when the goals of the assignment allow student values to be expressed” (citing a manuscript in review). They also suggest starting small as there are many existing assignments and projects that could be enhanced through use of OER-enabled pedagogy. Some examples shared were test bank question writing and shifting an essay to an online resource/help guide for future students of the course/college. The presenters emphasized phased or stages for development of projects. This is important to keep in mind as I develop the BIT 295 course to create projects that help future offerings. Werth discussed some potholes to implementation and most could be addressed with training and faculty development. Effective student mentorship requires faculty open pedagogy planning. Williams suggested guiding students through Creative Commons and to account for reasons students may not want their names online. They also suggested using forms that clearly document how students intend works to be used. I had not considered how students can document their decisions! Next time I will use a Qualtrics survey and allow users to download a PDF of their decision and information. Williams also suggested using the Creative Commons Calculator. This session was so timely as OER and Open were on my mind today, and I present at OESS tomorrow. The presenters brought up several important considerations for OER-enabled pedagogy. I will think carefully about how to scaffold BIT 295 OER assignments and how to be more transparent with students.
