This version does is not the full presentation.

2. Delegates will be able to…
• gain insights into key findings around the
principles of effective collaborative open
learning linked to a specific study
• discuss cross-boundary learning in the
context of cross-institutional academic
development and relevance for their own
practice
• discuss the potential use of the collaborative
open learning framework from this study for
own practice

3. Research questions
• 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?

4. 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

5. 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/

6. Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• Informal CPD
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Initial survey data about study participants ( n = 25)

7. 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-
boundar
y
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
Outcome space

8. 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

9. Want better quality teaching?
Competition
Collaboration
Nerantzi, C. (accepted) Alternative approaches to the TEF: raising the quality of teaching through
openness, collaboration and innovation, in: Compass, Greenwich: University of Greenwich

10. References
Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A., 2011. Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. June 2011, 81 (2). pp. 132–
169.
Algers, A., 2016. OEP as boundary practices – how academy and society can inform each other. ExplOER project webinar. Accessed from
https://connect.sunet.se/p4gxj96aglg/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
Coughlan, T. & Perryman, L., 2012. Reaching out with OER: the new role of public-facing open scholar. eLearning Papers, 31. Accessed
from http://oro.open.ac.uk/35934/1/In-depth_31_1.pdf
Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education: Voices from Below, EdD thesis, University of Lincoln,
available at http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf
Hall, R. & Smyth, K., (2016). Dismantling the curriculum in higher education. Open library of humanities, 2 (1), p.e11. Accessed from
http://doi.org/10.16995/olh.66
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
Marton, F., 1986. Phenomenography – A research approach to investigating different understandngs of reality. Journal of thought, 21 (3),
Fall 1986, Periodicals Archive Online. pp.28-49.
Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10, pp. 177-200.
Pegler, C., 2013. The influence of open resources on design practice. In: Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., eds., 2013. In: Rethinking pedagogy for
a digital age. Designing for 21st century learning. London: Routledge, pp.145-158.
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
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.