Today the OERxDomains Conference started! Will, David, Erin, and I presented on the Open Incubator and Citizen Science! It was a lot of fun! The conference system is fantastic too! I also talked about how citizen science is not limited to citizens and the wonderful work the Delftia group of undergraduate researchers did editing Wikipedia!
I want to watch as many sessions as I can. A session entitled “Encouraging Learning Agency Through Self-mapped Learning Pathways” by Matt Crosslin caught my attention. Crosslin started with the problem of “subtracting individuality and culture away from learners” and how “student-centered learning is often based on consensus rather than individualization.” Crosslin asked: is there a way to have both the instructor pathway and let learners create their own pathways? Research in 2015 helped create the self-mapped learning pathways system. Crosslin posed an interesting question: if instructors can chart their own pathways, why can’t learners? The challenge was how to combine competency and decision choices. Crosslin and colleagues did this study by letting the learning pick from the instructor pathway or go to their own pathway or jump back and forth while reaching set competencies. Crosslin provided the metaphor of touring a botanical garden and going off the path to view something and then coming back to the path. The research results Crosslin shared suggests learners stated a preference for the student centered but had time constrains that kept them on the instructor centered pathway. This is a really intriguing results. Some learners “expressed skepticism” and technology did become confusing. Instructors explained the underlying course design and learners found this confusing. I love how Crosslin mentioned “rejecting grades” because they want “everyone’s pathway to be meaningful.” They identified five tactics learners generally utilized based on click-stream data. These were tactics that students used to view and complete activities. Some tactics included a learner-learner interaction (I just reviewed this as part of Quality Matters standards!). Mapping out the tactics, Crosslin showed how learners navigate to different activities/interactions. Crosslin discussed the methods used for the study and upcoming publication of the work. I love this type of study in which the goal is to provide options, empower students, and learn.
Another session I watched was entitled “Agency, Scale and Holistic Approaches to Education” by Tanya Elias. They defined Holistic Technologies and Prescriptive Technologies. In holistic technologies, Elias mentioned, artists control the process from beginning to finish while in prescriptive each step is carried out following a guide. Elias is using situational analysis using maps! The study had three phases: anonymous qualitative study online, anonymous mapping, and focus groups. Elias showed the process with a map, sticky notes with quotes, and a relational map. Elias mentioned they focus on the philosophical bases for open education, and the maps clearly help realize the level at which Elias studies this field. Using positional maps, Elias started to look at the level of agency and scale. Elias spoke to open educators and learned that in another model you don’t let go of agency when scaling; however, the scaling is not linear: there are increasing levels of customization. Elias mentioned that this model is what makes open education exciting. Nevertheless, Elias talked about how we often fall into the traditional institutional models and begin to lose agency. During the question session, Elias explained that we often have to go back and think about how technologies and communities started. Interestingly, Elias mentioned that open educators don’t want to talk about scale. I wonder why…
