Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Towards a cross-boundary
collaborative open learning
framework for cross-institutional
academic development
Viva preparation resources
Chrissi Nerantzi
2017

Health warning
• These are only sample materials and questions
• You will need to adapt questions to your context
and also there will be many questions that will be
specific to your study only.
• The answers provided to the questions and
shown here, are provisional and further changes
were made on paper as these were then used as
flashcards for the mock viva grillings… as I called
them ;).

What you will find here
• Research summary
• Viva questions
• Chapter summaries
• To take with me into the viva
• Used and useful during the viva
• Questions I was asked
These sections are indicated with bright yellow
slides.

I hope some of it will be useful for others
preparing for their viva.
Feel free to adapt!

Timeline of viva preparation
5th May 2017 submission of thesis
5th June 2017 started viva prep (reading questions,
created this presentation, formulating questions and
answers)
18th July 2017 above prep completed
28 July mock viva 28
August 2017 continued prep until back from holidays.
Early September 2017 seven mock viva grillings by Adam
last one 5 Sep 2017
1 Sept 2017 mini DoS mock viva
4 Sep 2017 last chat with supervisor

Whole studies
Started studies 14 January 2013
Data collection 2013-2015
Draft 1 July 2016
Draft 2 January 2017
Thesis ready April 2017
Thesis submitted 5 May 2017
Examiners approved at School level 22 June 2017
Examiners approved at institutional level 4 July 2017
Viva date confirmed 24 July 2017
Viva date 8 September 2017

In this PhD I explored…
• Collaborative open learning in cross-institutional
professional development courses for those who
teach in HE in the UK.
• Collaborative open learning is defined for this
study as learning that happens in openly-licensed
courses online and offline, where collaboration is
a choice and designed-into the course.
• The collaborations among institutions are of
informal nature driven by practitioners.

RQs
• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic
development courses experienced that have been
designed to provide opportunities for collaborative
learning?
• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional
academic development courses 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?

I did this by…
• Conducting a phenomenographic study to gain insights into the
collective lived collaborative open learning experience and identify
the qualitatively limited different ways in which it was experienced
(Marton, 1981) aiming to inform practice.
• Collecting data via individual remote interviews with 22 participants
on 2 open courses, FDOL and #creativeHE (collective case study
approach, Stake, 1995)
• The findings led to 11 categories of descriptions grouped in 3 pools:
collaboration, course, boundary crossing and their variations.
• The final phenomenographic output was the outcome space which
shows the inter-relationships of the categories of descriptions.
• A collaborative open learning framework was developed based on
the discussion of the findings.
• Background information and demographics of the collective case
study we collected through 2 survey instruments

Initial survey,
19 Qs (n=25)
Final survey,
3 Qs (n=22)
Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(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 (background
information,
demographics)
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
p.105

Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25) ---- 33 study participants in
total
studies
work
location
age
work place
formal/informal study
Group members 77%
On own 13%
Didn’t participate 5%
Study time
Up to 3 hrs 54%
3-5 hours 14%
Over 5 hours 32%
Final survey responses (n=22)

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

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.

Learner engagement patterns
Selective collaborator Immersive collaborator
• 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
• Support mainly from within the group
Learner needs
• Milestone cohort activities
• Process
• Some asynchronous group activities
• Sporadic synchronous group activities
• Light touch facilitation
• Social relationships, community
• Regular asynchronous group activities
• Regular synchronous activities
• Regularly facilitation (push – pull)
• Co-created products
Design considerations
Collaborating
institutions
Organisation, and
facilitation team
Learner profiles and
cross-boundary
considerations
Learning and
Teaching approach
Group work and
community
Resources, tools and
open licensing
Accreditation /
Recognition
Online / Offline mode Course outcomes
and activities
Timing and
scheduling

for cross-institutional academic development
Visualisation by Elizabeth Walshaw

This research is important because…
• To break free from conservatism in academic development, to model
innovations in learning and teaching and to enable staff to experience
these first hand
• Seize opportunities presented by the importance placed in academic
development as teaching moved centre stage, technological
advancements (digital, social media), the open education movement.
• Respond to the call from the sector for more collaborative, connected and
open provision across institutions in the UK and further afield.
• To transform practices, practitioners, how academic development is
practised currently and put forward a case for new practices.
• Propose an alternative model to drive quality of teaching, against the
competitive model linked to financial gains proposed by the government
with the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (BIS, 2016).

I reviewed the literature around…
• Collaborative learning
• Open education in HE
• Digital technologies for learning and design
frameworks
• Academic development in the UK

The main methodological limitations
(p. 143)
• Researcher as participant (facilitator and
researcher): bracketing measures to suspend
judgement, reflective diary, transcript and
findings shared with participants to identify if
these resonate with some of their experiences, p.
147
• Piloting of the data collection (Survey piloting p.
144, interview piloting p. 144, suitability test
outcomes from interview piloting: Too many
questions, responses provided without need of
all questions to be asked, Adobe > Skype) to
strengthen research design

Limitations of this study
• Study participants: the majority where learning in groups.
Therefore large proportion of data from these. More
autonomous participants may have provided different
range of data.
• Sole researcher: no peer discussions due to the nature of
this research (assessed). Addressed through reflective diary
capturing research process for the reader to decide on
credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
• Developing as a phenomenographic interviewer: Over-
preparation of questions. Less questions provided rich
reflective responses as they were open. Adjustments were
made as interviews progressed. Pilot interview also helped.
A more organic approach to be adopted in the future.

My contribution to knowledge and
practice…
In the area of open academic development
Contribution to theory
• Gaining new insights into collaborative open learning
patterns (RQ1) (immersive and selective collaboration >
anyone (staff, students, public + online and offline)
• Identification of course features that foster cross-boundary
collaborative open learning (RQ2) (facilitation, elastic
design, community)
Contribution to practice
• Development of a collaborative open learning framework
(design features, learning patterns, learner needs)

Directions for future research
• Testing the collaborative open learning
framework in practice
• A case-study free approach for data
collection with a different sample
• Study the open facilitator experience

7 points about this study
• Teaching excellence framework in the UK to raise quality of teaching based
on a competitive model with financial incentives for universities
• I propose instead collaboration and openness to engage academics in CPD,
change practices and innovate
• I explored the collaborative open learning experience in two openly
licensed cross-institutional academic development courses (collective case
study) using phenomenography, how collaborative open learning is
experienced, what design features influence this experience
• I interviewed 22 study participants from the collective case
• I found out how participants experienced collaborative open learning (as
immersive and selective collaborators) and what design features
influenced that experience (design, facilitation, community)
• boundary crossing significant factor of the experience
• construction of an openly licensed cross-boundary collaborative open
learning framework (leaner patterns, learner needs, design characteristics)
for other academic developers to adapt.

How did you develop interest in this
area?
• Open practitioner, committed to academic
development and exploring approaches that
could attract academics to engage in CPD
• Fascinated and curious how open learning is
experienced especially when people come
together online
• Seeds for this work in my MSc dissertation online
PBL pilot, academic developers and participants
in different UK institutions on PgCerts to learn
together (focus assessment and feedback).

What are the reasons for conducting
this study?
• Open education is becoming more wide-
spread.
• Exploring how we can harness it in the context
of academic development and model
innovative practices that engage academics in
alternative forms of CPD
• Gaining insights into the collaborative open
learning experience and influencing future
practices through findings and framework

How do you feel about your thesis?
• A sense of achievement (new insights,
framework) useful for own practice and hopefully
others.
• We talk a lot and how to engage academics in
CPD. The framework developed provides new
insights an alternative for academic development
that models an innovative approach in the area of
open education through cross-boundary
collaboration that has the potential to transform
our offer.

Could you summarise key points of
your thesis?
• I conducted a phenomenographic study to explore the
collaborative open learning experience in two open
cross-institutional academic courses.
• The findings evidence that collaborative open learning
was lived as an immersive and selective experience in
these two courses. 22 participants
• A framework was constructed based on the discussion
of the findings (anyone, anywhere, anyhelp, anyhow,
learner as community, course as community) that can
be considered by developers who are interested in
adopting alternative practices

What was the most interesting/surprising
discovery you made?
What emerged through the data:
• Boundary crossing and its importance for the
study participants in the two open cross-
institutional academic development courses, how
this shaped their experience.
• Collaborative open learning patterns and how
both were dynamic and valuable for engagement
and development.
• That open courses also extend learning linked to
local/offline support communities.

How has your view of your research
topic changed?
• New insights how collaborative open learning
is experienced (immersive, selective but
dynamic patterns)
• New dimensions brought to light:
– Boundary crossing and role in collaborative open
learning
– Offline dimension of open learning
– Importance of community/communities

What did you enjoy the most? What
are you the most proud of and why?
• The synthesis of the findings as it is a creative
process.
• Making meaning out of chaos to construct the
categories of description, the outcome space
and then the openly licensed framework that
can be used in practice to make a difference to
how academic development is practiced.

What did you find particularly
challenging?
• Analysing 100,999 words of transcript. The
analysis process was complex and frustrating
at times (reflective diary).
• Initially using Nvivo as it was a new tool for
me.
• Gaining confidence in the methodology and
trusting what the data was telling me.

How did this research change you as a
researcher? What have you learnt from the
process of doing a PhD?
• Through this complex and long process, I have learnt
that I have endurance and persistence and deal with
challenges to complete such a research project.
• Recognised the value of reflection during the research
process to question myself and build confidence.
• I have become more confident with phenomenography
and have started helping other phenomenographers.
• Helped me develop MA supervision skills which I have
started applying.

What would you do differently if you were
starting out all over again? How could you
improve your work?
• Interviews: a more organic approach, less
questions, which did happen as the interviews
progressed
• Background information could also have been
collected through interviews. So no surveys at
all or just one initial survey.
• Perhaps trying a case study free approach?
More diverse data around the collaborative
open learning experience?

Did you do anything wrong? Why?
• There are always ways to improve.
• I was a relative new phenomenographer. This
was a big study.
• I could have simplified the process. The two
surveys were probably not needed.
• Too many questions in interviews.
• Could perhaps collect data from open
community NOT from specific case studies
(added complexity).

Why is this research important? Why is this
problem you tackled worth tackling?
• Insights provide opportunities for consideration
of an alternative approach to academic
development and model this using technology-
supported and open pedagogical approaches.
• It provides evidence how collaborative open
learning is experienced in such settings by
academics and what this meant to them.
• It shows that academics value this type of
professional development.

What are the main issues and debates
in this subject area?
• Raise quality of teaching through stimulating
and immersive CPD for academics as students.
• Academic development more current and
model innovative: At the moment often
institutional and workshop-based. Still
challenges with technology often separated.
• Opportunity to harness open education: to
achieve the above and create sustainable and
innovative models.

What are the strongest features of
your research?
• The outcome space as a synthesis of the
categories of description provide a clear visual
map of the categories of description and how
these are interlinked.
• The outcome space enabled the construction
of a framework to make the findings usable
for practice.
• That the work can be used in practice.

What contribution does your thesis make?
What have you done that merits a PhD?
• Carried out work that hasn’t been done before.
• Insights into the collaborative open learning
experience (learner patterns: selective,
immersive collaborator)
• Insights into the design features to foster
collaborative open learning
• Synthesis of findings led to the development of a
new framework for collaborative open learning

In one sentence, what is your thesis?
• The thesis provides insights into how cross-
boundary collaborative open learning in cross-
institutional academic development was
experienced and opportunities for practice
through the findings and the framework
constructed.

What is the idea that binds your thesis
together?
• Open professional development can make a
real difference to engaging academics in CPD
in cross-boundary settings that foster
collaborative learning.

What are the weakest features of your research?
What are the defects of your study?
• Majority of study participants worked in
groups (77%)
• Sole researcher as it was a doctoral study.
Validation by fellow researchers would have
strengthened the findings
• Researcher’s development as a
phenomenographic interviewer: sticking to
the script initially but moved away
progressively, more organic approach

Explain the steps you carried out in your
research. What was the chronology of your
study?
• My interest in this field led me to the formulation of research questions around
collaborative learning, how it is experienced and designed into an open course in
academic development.
• Selected 2 open courses to collect the data. Had access to these and they had
collaborative learning features.
• Courses were offered and phenomenographic data and I collected via 22
interviews.
• Survey instruments helped construct the collective case study, background
information.
• The analysis followed. Categories and outcomes space where formed.
• Literature review was conducted based on the findings but also the research
questions (collaboration, openness, use of technologies, frameworks, academic
development, boundary crossing).
• Discussion linked to RQ1 and RQ2 followed and the framework was developed
(RQ3).
• Have been writing systematically from early on.
• But after I have had the findings, I wrote more systematically the discussion and
conclusion happened progressively through many iterations and reviews.

What were the crucial research
decisions you made?
• Defining the focus of study, research questions
and outputs
• Deciding on the appropriate methodology
• How best to collect data to help articulate a
response to the research questions
• To systematically work on this study over the
last 4.5 years despite a full-time job and a
young family

Where did the research questions
come from?
• I am an open practitioner, open projects.
• Value collaboration.
• Know that collaboration can make a difference to
academic development. Managerial approaches
within institutions don’t work (Crawford, 2009).
• Academics reach out to external disciplinary
networks and communities, belonging.
• I wanted evidence how collaborative open
learning is experienced in cross-institutional open
courses and impact this has on engagement in
CPD and impact this has on engagement in CPD.

Did the research questions change
along the way?
• YES they did.
• Initial questions were submitted together with
the PhD proposal, before the study began.
• I kept a record of how the questions evolved
over time at the top of the annotated table of
content for the whole thesis.
• RQs changed 6 times. BUT changes are small
often to bring more clarity and focus.
• See next slide >>>

RQs
Initial RQs Final RQs
RQ1 How can collaborative learning
approaches be used to create positive
opportunities for collaboration and
peer learning in open cross-
institutional Academic Development
courses?
How are open cross-institutional
academic development courses that
have been designed to provide
opportunities for collaborative open
learning experienced by learners?
RQ2 What design factors and enabling
aspects promote deep engagement
and effective learning in open cross-
institutional Academic Development
courses?
Which characteristics of open cross-
institutional academic development
courses most strongly influence
learners' collaborative open learning
experience and how?
RQ3 Drawing upon research findings from
research questions 1 and 2, what
would be the key features of a
proposed collaborative design
framework for open online cross-
institutional academic development
courses?
Drawing upon research findings from
RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key
characteristics of a proposed
collaborative open learning framework
for open cross-institutional academic
development courses?
Note: earlier version… what are…

Did you access other thesis?
• My exploration with the literature took me to the following
– (academic CPD) >>>Karen Crawford’s thesis (2009) CPD post-
and pre-1992 institutions CPD, multi-case exploration, 36
academic staff > findings: negative effects on managerial
models, external networks.
– (postgrad students) >>> p. 77> Chung-Ming Ou (2012) Dynamics
among non-English native speaking online learners and coping
mechanism < cross-cultural online collaboration (grounded
theory), 40 postgrad students in US and Taiwan on Education
Psychology programmes, small groups using PBL> findings need
for “collaboration-friendly” approaches to create a community,
also flexibility and facilitator, peer support. Issues with English
were overcome through support.

How do you define cross-institutional
academic development?
• Collaboration among and across institutions
that is of informal nature.
• Grassroots development driven by
practitioners based on the idea of “little OER”
(Wenger, 2011).

How do you define open educational
practices?
Courses, activities, practices supported by digital
technologies using the internet and social and
open media that utilise OER and often made
available under a creative commons licence.
Organised by individuals, institution or groups
that are opened-up extensions of existing formal
or informal activities or new. Open badges are
often awarded to participants in these and
others may be working towards credits.

Strengths: what are the highlights of the
thesis? What might others find valuable?
The cross-boundary collaborative open
learning framework.
The two patterns, immersive and selective
Open learning as online and offline
dimension
Value of boundary crossing.
Weaknesses: what parts are difficult to
explain? What are the limitations of what
you’ve done?
The use of a collective case study. Why not
data from the wider open community?
Findings related to the collective case study
but deep insights.
Opportunities: how might you extend your
work? What can you do now?
Consider the facilitator experience.
Incorporate in the collaborative open
learning framework.
New study that brings learner and facilitator
experience together.
Threats: how might someone criticise what
you’ve done? Are there any potential
problems?
My dual role, facilitator/organiser and
researcher.
Personal bias and open educator (activist)
BUT phenomenography enabled me to step
outside (bracketing as much as possible) and
include all voices.
Source http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/

What skills have you developed?
• Carry out phenomenographic research with
greater confidence.
• Develop phenomenographic interview
techniques further.
• Systematic approach to a large scale research
project.
• Networking for research purposes.
• MA supervision skills developed further and
applying already.

In what ways would you say you
achieved what you set out to achieve?
• I set out to explore the collaborative open learning
experience in cross-institutional academic
development courses (2 cases).
• I did this through a phenomenographic study and
gained deep insights into the experience and
identifying also specific design features that share that
experience.
• My findings have been synthesised in the proposed
framework.
• Boundary crossing is something that became
fundamental to my exploration. A fascinating discovery
in the context of academic development.

Questions linked to the literature

What informed the literature review?
• Research questions provided a starting point.
• Started reading broad areas linked to these:
collaborative learning, open education, academic
development, design frameworks supported by
digital technologies and social media.
• After the phenomenographic analysis, I did most
of the literature review. This is informed by the
themes that emerged through the data, such as
crossing boundaries, cooperative and
collaborative learning.

What strategies did you use to identify
literature?
• Previous experience/knowledge/research
• Professional communities (SEDA, ALT, open
education etc.) mailing lists.
• Professional open networks (SEDA, GO-GN)
and national and international conferences
• Citations in academic papers
• Academia.edu, research gate.

List 3/5 key people in your field and explain how they influenced
your work/ What are the 3/5 most important papers which
relate to your thesis?
• Andy Lane (2009) (journal article) >>> openness to bridge the digital divide, the need to democratise open education,
more inclusive, supported and not imperialistic…
• Martin Weller (2011) (book chapter) >>> “little OER” concept grassroots developments while focus on resources,
highlights role of social media to spread, also applicable to practices, can make a real difference (p.46)
• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- & post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to
CPD external professional networks and communities to avoid managerial approaches after PgCert, also institutional
tech-teaching little/no impact (p.86, p.90)
• Pierre Dillenbourgh (1999) (book chapter) >>> “learning from collaboration” and “process goals” something that
emerged from my findings, emphasis on process and the challenge to create a shared product (pp. 34-35)
• Yrjö Engeström, Ritva Engeström & Merja Kärkkäinen (1995) >>> 1993 -1994 study explored boundary crossing in
learning and expertise in teams & networks > 3 case studies: schools, banks and factories and medical centres in
Finland and US > findings horizontal practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse views into consideration (p.55)
• Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson & Walter Archer (2000, 2010) >>> community of inquiry (conceptual framework)>
cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence > belonging through facilitator support> computer conferencing
study in HE, asynchronous and text-based, study to validate it based on Dewey’s work. 2010 study confirms growing
importance of teaching presence (p.73-74)
• EXTRA Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger (1991) (book)>>> (situated learning) community of practice (evidence-based),
interest driven, people support each other, lurking (Wenger, White and Smith, 2009) > peripheral participation (p.74)
• EXTRA linked to last one>>> Dave White & Alison LeCornu (2011) (longitudinal study) (p.67) digital residents and visitors
> motivations for engagement online/offline (p.67)

What published work is closest to
yours? How is your work different?
• Karen Crawford (2009) (thesis, multi-case, 36 interviews, pre- &
post-1992 HEIs) >>> academics pro-active reach out to CPD external
professional networks and communities to avoid managerial
approaches after PgCert, also institutional tech-teaching little/no
impact (p.86, p.90)
• Researched professional development of academics, collective case
study, interviews
• My work:
– Different starting point > open, cross-institutional CPD
– Studied the collaborative open learning experience in these settings
– Findings confirm the value of cross-boundary CPD has for academics
– Could be seen as evidence to support Crawford’s discoveries.

You make only limited reference to
MOOCs. How do you explain this?
• Lit review driven by the themes that emerges through
the data.
• Courses used in study were not MOOCs.
• MOOCs (2008) started as a form of open educational
practices with a focus on extremely large scale
implementation. Since 2012 beyond the initial cMOOCs
(connectivist MOOCs) based on the ethos of open
education, other MOOC types xMOOCs have appeared
with commercialised features and dimensions.
• MOOCs have been reviewed (p. 43) but only briefly as
the courses of this study are OEP small scale
interventions (Ehlers, 2011a) p. 44

Which are the areas you didn’t focus strongly in your
literature review and why? Why did you use certain
literatures and theories and not others?
• Literature reviewed based on the findings. The
findings were driving to discuss these.
• Therefore some literature more in the
periphery… such as MOOCs, value of OER/Open
Ed, the Teaching Excellence Framework for
example, plus value of OER, open education.
• Data collected in advance of TEF…
• Value of OER, Open Education more generally
• My focus was on the collaborative open learner
experience

Tell us about the theoretical framework that
underpins your research. What theories inform
your work?

Theoretical framework
Open education
Academic development
Collaborative learning
Technology-
supported
frameworks
Cross-
boundary
Collaborative
open
learning
“learning from
collaboration” +
“process goals”
(Dillenbourg,
1999)
Democratising
open ed
(Lane, 2009)
“little OER”
(Weller, 2011)
Proactive
external CPD
(Crawford,
2009)
community of
inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer,
2000, 2010)
cognitive, social,
facilitator
presence,
belonging,
facilitator support
(=growing
importance)
Gap: collaboration as a
process, especially in the
context of open ed
Gap: more inclusive models
needed (Lane, 2009);
scaffolding (McAuley et al.,
2010); cross-institutional,
cross-boundary (Hall and
Smyth, 2016)
Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative learning & teaching (2014); more outwards
facing CPD (Craword, 2009); harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a; Redecker et al.
2011)
Community building ac dev model restricted to internal (Popovic & Plank, 2016)
Gap: NO framework for
collaborative learning in
open ed. EE opening-up
framework mentions cross-
institutional collaboration
and collab learning BUT no
details how. (Inamorato de
Santos, 2016)
Boundary crossing in learning and expertise in
teams & networks: Finland US, horizontal
practice, breaks monopoly of expert, diverse
views (Engeström, Engeström & Kärkkäinen,
1995)
Public facing open scholar > informal open
communities (child welfare community
observed divide academia, public, subject
communities FB) (Coughlan & Perryman, 2012)
HE application: boundary objects animal
slaughtering> diversity, increase trust, reduce
misunderstandings, misinterpretations can
occur and conflict , strategies to overcome
these important (Algers, 2016)

On p.22 you state that academic development as a whole could break
free from conservatism and seize opportunities technologies present
(Beetham, 2015). Can you explain what you mean?
• Changes to PgCert programmes and tech now more used >
Initial development often
• Ongoing development institutionally often relies on
workshops, curriculum dev/review activities, increasingly
SoTL
• Often inwards facing
• Need to learn from conferences
• Open education
• Be more experimental, take risks and collaborative beyond
institutional borders on a regular basis.
• In the end we help raise the quality of teaching across the
sector
• Find attractive ways to engage academics in CPD

Questions linked to the methodology

What are the limitations in the design?
• Collective case study approach to collect
data: Findings are linked to these two courses.
This could also be its strength as it provides
deep insights into the experience in the
collective case study.
• Collaborative open learner experience
captured without facilitators. What would
facilitators’ experience add?

Why did you choose phenomenography as your
methodology? What are the advantages?
• Epistemology: subjectivism > Theoretical perspective: phenomenology >
methodology > phenomenological research (interpretivist phenomenographic
subjectivist perspective) > Methods: interview (Crotty, 1998 research framework,
design elements) (p.103)
• I was interested in studying the experience of collaborative open learners
• Enables the study of the lived experience and its qualitatively different variations,
therefore suitable and an attempt to be holistic, not advocacy research (which
there is a lot linked to open ed, Weller et al. 2017 chapter)
• Is holistic, not linked to individuals but describes the qualitatively different
variations of the collective experience, useful to identify patterns and construct a
framework
• All data is used, all voices are heard, all perspectives
• Has been developed for an HE research to enhance learning and teaching and
would help answer my research questions which are linked to the experience of
open learners.
• To enhance learning and teaching (Ference Marton, 1981)

What are the main criticisms about
phenomenography?
• Data analysed as a collective > individual ignored? (Saljö,
1996)
• Data analysis just based on guidelines (Marton, 1981)
• Findings often seen as hierarchical, correct and less correct
views? (Webb, 1997 looking at surface/deep learning,
Entwistle’s work)
• Suspending judgement? Neutrality really possible?
• Reliability > but increased if reviewed by others (Sandberg,
1999) but use of bracketing strategies can help reliability
and trustworthiness
• More research expected, will remain within HE research
and not become mainstream (Malcolm Tight, 2015)

Why did you not use variation theory?
• I discovered it at a later stage in this study.
• An interesting methodology that seems to move
responsibility of identifying variations to the
participants themselves. So participants are more
involved. <variations as experienced by the
experiencer> < awareness of variations>a more
participatory approach?
• I want to study this further and consider for the
future.
• Variation theory (Pang, 2003)

Why did you not use Grounded
theory?
• There are similarities.
• Starting from the data, codes, concepts and then
categories.
• But grounded theory is about generating
concepts to build theory.
• Not description of experiences.
• I wanted to explore conceptions of experiences as
described and their qualitatively different
variations.

What is the difference between phenomenography
and phenomenology (pp. 103-104)
Phenomenography Phenomenology
A person’s lived experience of a
phenomenon (experiencing red)
The study of the consciousness of the
phenomenon (red)
Aim is to gain insights into the variation of
the qualitatively different ways a group
experiences a phenomenon, how they are
reflected and described > people’s
conceptions of the world
The phenomenon is the focus, the
phenomenon is uncovered
Aim is to study the lived experience of a
phenomenon with a focus on the
experience itself, the essence of the
experience, how the phenomenon is
Second order research perspective>
description of individuals experiences as a
collective. The world as described.
First order research perspective> Researcher
focusses on the experience
Analysis leads to conceptions and the
outcome space.
Analysis leads to the identification of
meaning units.
Learning and teaching experiences,
specifically developed for this purpose.
Commonly used to study affective,
emotional intense experiences

What precautions were taken against
bias?
• In phenomenography ALL data is used, so no filtering out.
Identifying qualitatively different variations is its strength.
• I put strategies in place to consciously suspend judgment and
minimise data contamination (reflective diary, asking self “Why
have I done this/say this?”, sharing transcript with participants for
accuracy, findings, outcomes space and framework)
• The framework was peer reviewed by researchers from across the
world (11)
• Bracketing, to suspend/minimise judgement as much as possible
Bracketing >>> only partially possible (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000) /
Selective bracketing (Adawi, Berlund, Botth & Ingerman (2001) p.
112. Reduction in contamination awareness raising, managing this
through specific strategies >>> See next one
• Thesis written in 3rd person

What bracketing strategies did you
use?
• Whole thesis written in the 3rd person
• My voice in prologue, epilogue only which sit outside the thesis
• Interview questions were open, listened carefully, didn’t assume,
asked for further information, details during the interview.
• Kept a reflective diary (data collection and data analysis),
transparency to the process
• Returned draft transcript to participants for checking
• Shared draft chapter 5 (findings) with participants I interviewed
• Didn’t conduct any literature review during the analysis stage
• Conducted literature review after the analysis had been completed
• Was inclusive and captured all voices in the transcript, dominant
and less dominant and all qualitatively different variations
• Coded all transcript
• Use extracts in findings from all participants, additional ones in
appendix

What does your reflective diary
include?
• The phenomenographic analysis process
• Some reflections on the interview process
(challenges with language, issue experienced as
facilitator-researcher)
• Information about participant researcher
• Images that capture the process (NVivo
screenshots, drawings of the draft outcome
space)
• Dilemmas and challenges during the analysis
• It is extensive and can be found in Appendix 5.2

What were the main ethical issues conducting
this research? How did you deal with them?
• Power relationship as I was a researcher and facilitator
• Aware of the risk, professional integrity and values, reflection on
the process, bracketing strategies
• Participation in study was voluntary, optional and open to all
learners in the two courses.
• Nobody was advantaged or disadvantaged from participating or not
in the study and could leave the study at any point.
• Surveys had no must complete questions.
• Interview questions open.
• Study participants who were also working towards credits and
would be assessed by researcher at the end of the semester/term
where reminded in information sheet and at the beginning at the
interview that their participation in study will not influence marking
of work, which did sit outside the open courses.

How did you decide when you had
enough participants?
• I studied the literature around phenomenography and
participants.
• Optimum number depends on the study (Sin, 2010;
Trigwell, 2000; Sandberg, 1996) (pp. 115-116)
• But between 12-20 for formal studies comes up.
• Tight (2016) says 20 or less.
• 20 is usually enough (Larsson & Holström, 2007) to
discover different ways of understanding a
phenomenon.
• Therefore I conducted around 20 interviews (22 in
total)

Talk us through the data analysis
method you used.
Followed Ference Marton (1986) guidelines BUT
no template or standard process, just guidelines
(p.115, p.138)
Phenomenographic analysis in steps >>>
Background information about the collective
case using two survey instrument (initial, final
survey)

Individual
remote
interviews
Preparing
Transcripts
Checking of
transcripts for
accuracy by
participants
Pool of
meanings
• Iterative
process in
NVivo
Categories of
description
Outcome space
Writing up
Sharing findings
with participants
(Ch 5, 6, 7)
Reflective diary
Phenomenographic analysis in steps

What challenges did you encounter
with the data analysis?
• Amount of data: The data were 100,999 words. This is
a huge amount of data to analyse.
• Software: Initially the software used presented a
challenge as it was new to me (Nvivo).
• Process itself: phenomenographic analysis based on
guidelines (Ference Marton, 1981), not rigid process,
good when confident but a challenge when new to the
methodology.
• Iterative process: knowing when the categories and
outcome space are stable
• Sole researcher: Not been able to carry out the
analysis with somebody for debate and confirmation.

Why did you use Nvivo to analyse your
interview responses?
• Large amount of data
• 22 interviews, 100,999 words in total.
• While challenges to learn this software tool, it
was useful during the iterative data analysis
process.
• Make changes easily and quickly and have
overview of these changes.
• Used extracts in reflective diary as well, to
capture the analysis process and the different
stages.

How do you know your findings are
correct?
• Trustworthy and reliable as it is an explorative
qualitative study.
• Transparency of the process:
– Reflective diary to bracket and minimise data
contamination
– Confirmed transcripts with participants.
– Findings (categories, outcome space, discussion and
framework) shared with participants
– Included quotes from all participants in thesis (each
participant has a unique identifier)
• Peer review of framework by 11 practitioners

What alternatives methodological
approaches did you consider and why
did you reject these?
• Researcher participant: I could consider action research (advocacy
research) especially as I had a dual role (facilitator and researcher)
• Not used because:
– I was particularly interested in the participants’ experience
– More holistic research needed beyond advocacy (Weller et al. 2017,
book chapter about OER in new edited book)
• Considered also not using a collective case study approach to
collect data (both courses had designed in collaborative learning
features) BUT more practical to stay with the approach taken. I
thought it would have been too difficult to identify participants
otherwise.
• Could have used one of the pedagogical frameworks for analysis
(Community of practice, Wenger; 5-stage model, Salmon) I
reviewed these with others in the literature.

How and why did you choose to focus
on these particular case studies?
• I had access to these as the organiser
• Both were cross-institutional open courses in
the area of academic development, linked to
PgCert/MA in at least one institution
• Both had collaborative open learning features
designed in but different ones (PBL and more
flexible approach)
• They were offered in the timeframe of this
study

How did you develop the categories of
description?
• It was an iterative process.
• Initially I read all transcripts multiple times and annotated these on
paper.
• Moved everything into NVivo.
• Started creating nodes using the key interview questions/ themes
around collaboration.
• I could see that the data overall could be separated out into 3 pools.
(course, collaboration, boundary crossing)
• I moved things around many times and at some point I had to start
from scratch as it didn’t feel that I was getting anywhere.
• At some point categories stabilised and I didn’t feel the need to
make more changes.
• I then shared these with participants. They could see their
experience represented.
• I documented the process in the reflective journal. I included
challenges and dilemmas.

How did you develop the outcome
space?
• I carefully looked at the categories of
description again in the 3 pools.
• I started from trying to identify relationships
among the categories on paper, using flip
chart.
• Iterative process, various forms before this
became stable.
• Documented in the reflective journal

Can you describe the main findings in
a few sentences?
• There are 2 patterns of collaborative open learning,
selective and immersive
• Community plays a key role for immersive
collaboration
• Facilitator support is vital
• Boundary crossing enriches the experiences, motivate
people to participate in collaborative open learning
• Design needs to be flexible
• Development is ongoing, a community can play this
role
• Collaborative open learning has an offline dimension

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
p.201

• Focus on self
• Focus on group
Learner needs
• Process
Collaborating
institutions
Organisation, and
facilitation team
cross-boundary
considerations
Learning and
Teaching approach
Group work and
community
open licensing
Accreditation /
Recognition
and activities
Timing and
scheduling
p.237

On p.260 (conclusions) you state that the framework is for those
interesting in developing “cross-boundary-friendly” collab
learning opportunities. Can you explain what you mean?
• My findings confirmed the value of boundary
crossing in the context of academic development.
• The framework raises awareness of boundary
crossing, opportunities and challenges and
strategies to implement this type of learning
based on evidence from this study.
• Specific strategies such as choice, diverse
grouping, online/offline learning, community and
focus of collaboration on the process can
contribute to create “cross-boundary friendly”
settings also with the support of facilitators.

How do you think your work takes forward or
develops the literature in this field?
• New insights into the literature around collaborative
learning, strengthen the importance of collaboration as
a process (Dillenbourgh, 1999)
• Adds to the body of literature around open education
that is not presenting an advocate perspective.
• Adds to the body of literature around boundary
crossing, no literature found regarding this in the
context of academic development.
• Strengthens literature of role supported community
plays for professional development and cross-
institutional collaboration for CPD purposes.

What are the implications of your findings?
How could the results be used?
• Create alternative ways to offer academic
development, more collaborative, cross-
institutional and cross-boundary experience,
staff, students and the public learning together
• Alternative CPD opportunities for academic staff
within cross-boundary communities
• Further research in this area, the dimensions of
the framework could be used as the basis, also
the categories of description and the outcome
space

To what extent do your contributions
generalise?
• Findings provided deep insights into the experience
linked to the collective case study (2 courses) for future
enhancement of these courses. Framework could be
used.
• Relevant to other academic developers who consider
offering/developing such opened-up courses as these
are accredited provision that sit within at least one
institution and meet specific criteria that will be
relevant to other provision.
• More broadly collaborative learning in other settings,
blended and online provision with staff and students.

Who would easily agree with you?
Who would find your work useful?
• Academic developers who are interested in
the ideas of open learning and the
opportunities this brings.
• Other open practitioners who would like to
implement, review collaborative learning
strategies in open/online and blended
settings.
• I hope that practitioners engage critically
with this work and test the framework

Who would quickly disagree with you?
• Practitioners/institutions with a different philosophical
starting point (not open/not collaborative).
• When/where competition is more important than
collaboration would find it challenging.
• Academic developers and managers who perhaps see
these ideas as a threat that they could loose their jobs
or others resistant to change more generally? (Dastur,
2017 in the context of open, academic departments)
• I hope that this work will be a stimulus for reflection.

On p. 251 you state that you have given the framework for peer
review. Could you summarise the key observations?
• It provided deeper understanding about collab open learning
• Framework seen as valuable for course designers
• New dimension of boundary crossing was recognised
• They saw the opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration to overcome
political barriers (managerial ac dev)
• Also seen useful for MOOCs
• Alternative versions could be developed for learners, designers etc.
• Well structured, clear links to findings
Questions
• 3 dimensions: patterns and needs together, BUT course characteristics
somehow separate? Other perspective? >>> courses had collab features
so it was natural that participants would comment on how these shaped
their experience. NOT other perspective
• OER and open licensing didn’t feature strongly was a surprise for one
reviewern>>> but my work was about the collab open experience, for me
not a surprise as it was an immersive experience

What advice would you give to a
research student entering this area?
• A support network is invaluable
• Read widely, go and present at conferences
• Keep a reflective journal (blog)
• Work systematically and regularly
• Agree support strategies with supervisory team
• Persistence and resilience, when experiencing
difficulties take a break, share with a
friend/family member

To what developments could your ideas lead
and how could it be done?
• Recognising value and contribution of open
learning in the context of professional
development, link to formalised learning
• Spreading of diverse pick ‘n’ mix academic
development approaches > increase engagement
in CPD/ capture more complete picture of current
CPD that happens beyond an institution
• Acknowledge the importance cross-boundary
communities and establish these to foster diverse
development

How long will this work remain
innovative?
• Innovation is dynamic. Concepts, ideas evolve
and this will too. If practitioners see value in this
work, it will spread and could become normalised
practice. Then it will stop being novel and
innovative.
• As a practitioner researcher my interest is in
working on the boundaries, as these change so
will my exploration of the new opportunities
opening up
• Innovation is something that is dynamic and
changes all the time, so will my research

What developments have there been
in the field since you began your PhD?
• Sustainability of open ed discussed more, also at OE Global Cape Town 2017 (not in thesis, my
focus was on experience) Extensive funding a few years ago, but what is happening with projects
after funding stops?
• More open ed research since 2010, still very new discipline (Weller et al. 2017) more advocacy
research, holistic research missing
• The need to democratise of open education, Global North + Global South – still a gap, imperialistic
approach
• Resources > Practices > Communities ALSO open textbooks
• MOOCs open > commercialisation > closed > professional training
• Open > boundary crossing (Connected Curriculum work by (Dilly Fung, 2017 OER mentioned once,
no mention of open education at all, focus on inquiry-based learning); Porous University (Ronald
Macintyre, 2017)
• 2016 new book around Ac Development (Baume and Popovic) Models of ac development (Popovic
and Plank (2017) chapter> ‘grassroots’, ‘faculty-led’, ‘strategic’, ‘community-building’ and ‘research-
based’ NOT about open, not about external or cross-institutional, focus still on the institution
• More discussion about open pedagogy especially 2017 (David Wiley, Martin Weller, 2017) but still
ill defined usually on the use of OER, theory and practice not brought together
• Mainstreaming OER mainly but also open education
• Discussion around digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu) continues, new article August
2017 focus on mapping activity and how this is helping practitioners to discuss and review their
digital practices

Have you thought about publications?
Which journals are appropriate?
Ideas for papers
• The design of the framework
• The dimension of boundary crossing
• Open educational communities
• Review of HE including academic development and learning technology in the UK
(also timelines)
Open access journals
– Open Praxis (https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis) by the International Council for
Open and Distance Education, global partnership, links to UNESCO and partly funded by Norway
– The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
(http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl) Athabasca University
– Journal of Applied Academic Practice, cross-institutional collaboration led by Edinburgh Napier
University, learning, teaching and academic development, broad rimit
(http://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP)
– ALT Journal Association for Learning Technology, open access https://www.alt.ac.uk/topic/alt-
journal-open-access
I would have liked to publish in an open access Academic development journal but there isn’t one.
It is a shame that Innovations in Education and Teaching International, International Journal for
Academic Development (SEDA) BUT open select option (gold, where you have to pay to publish…
about £2000/article)

What are your plans post-PhD?
• Continue exploring collaborative open
learning, related research activities.
• Implement the framework (FOS).
• Facilitator perspective
• Framework for open learning that
incorporates collaborative learning.

Why are you doing this PhD at your
age? (from Prof. Sally Brown)
– Research into a new area that is dear to my heart
as an open practitioner, inquiry into how it works
– Produce something that is valuable for my own
future practice and others
– It is never too late. Learning is lifelong > Γηράσκω
αεί διδασκόμενος

Is there a question we should have
asked you? (Dr Need Yasin)
• If I would make any changes to the framework I developed
before writing it up for publication/implementing it in
practice.
• I would change “learner” to “learning” and “collaborator”
to “collaboration” so that it is clearer that these are
dynamic patterns. So immersive and selective collaboration
instead of collaborator, a person, as both patterns used by
the same person. This change would bring additional
clarity.
• Similar issues with deep, surface, strategic learning instead
of learner (paper: student approaches to learning, Oxford
uni) but also issue with learning styles (Frank Coffield)

for cross-institutional academic development
learner > learning
collaborator > collaboration

Chapter 1
• Overview of study and context
• Aim to explore collaborative open learning in cross-institutional ac dev
• Definition of collab open learning: in groups supported by facilitators using
OEP / OEP = activities, courses, practices networked, social media usually
openly licensed and make use of OER.
• Context ac dev since 1970s, periphery > centre, massification >
diversification, teaching quality linked to financial gains (TEF, 2016) also
linked to student experience and learning, BUT managerial approach don’t
seem to work (Di Napoli, 2014; Crawford, 2009)
• My work: collab open development engage staff > drive quality, and
opportunity to design/implement innovative solutions to immerse staff as
students to experience and prepare and consider for own practice
• RQs> 1 experience, 2 design features, 3 framework
• Contribution> 1 framework, 2 insights into collab open learning 3 key
design feature

Theoretical framework
Open education
Academic development
Collaborative learning
Technology-
supported
frameworks
Cross-
boundary
Collaborative
open
learning
“learning from
collaboration”
(Dillenbourg,
1999)
Democratising
open ed
(Lane, 2009)
“little OER”
(Weller, 2011)
Proactive
external CPD
(Crawford,
2009)
community of
inquiry (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer,
2000, 2010)
cognitive, social,
facilitator
presence,
belonging,
facilitator support
(growing
importance)
Gap: collaboration as a
process, especially in the
context of open ed
Gap: more inclusive models
needed (Lane, 2009);
scaffolding (McAuley et al.,
2010); cross-institutional,
cross-boundary (Hall and
Smyth, 2016)
Gap: Frameworks to drive innovative
learning & teaching (2014); more
outwards facing CPD (Craword, 2009);
harness tech & open (Conole, 2013a;
Redecker et al. 2011)
Gap: NO framework for
collaborative learning in
open ed. EE opening-up
framework mentions cross-
institutional collaboration
and collab learning BUT no
details how. (Inamorato de
Santos, 2016)
Boundary crossing in learning
and expertise in teams &
networks: Finland US,
horizontal practice, breaks
monopoly of expert, diverse
views (Engeström, Engeström
& Kärkkäinen, 1995)

Chapter 2 (learning with others)
Learning with others
• Cooperative + collab learning in schools in 1960 also unis to (PBL Mc
Master 1960s med ed)
• Coop – individual tasks (experiential learning Dewey, 1938 group goal
• Collab – social interaction (social constructivism, Vygotsky 1930s)
collective
• Not clear distinction coop, collab
• Product vs process (Dillenbourg, 1999) “learning from collaboration” focus
more on process “ > “collaboration as learning” (ner &goss, 2015)
• Group membership size depends on purpose, collab learning as choice
• Relationships (theory of cooperation competition (Deutsch, 1949) > Social
interdependence theory (Johnson 1970; Johnson & Johnson 1999) =
positive, negative and no interdependence > self interest to mutual
interest, context cooperative learning, but also relevant to online collab
learning (Sharples et al. 2016)

Chapter 2 (open ed)
Open ed phase 1: OER, phase 2: OEP (Ehlers et al. 2011); conversations about open pedagogy now starting > but weak at the moment 5R (Wiley).
• Not new concept, also antiquity Plato academy, Sunday schools, correspondence ed BUT not digital and openly licensed
• 1970 open source movement, 1969 OU in UK
• 2001 MIT open courseware; 2006 OU openlearn
• 2001 OER Unesco term; 2002 cc licences; 2008 MOC; 2010 open textbooks (US); 2012 open badges (Mozilla)
• Open ed issues: cc lack of control, authenticity, plagiarism, open textbooks extensive funding; open bades credibility?, MOOCs/OER imperialistic, a few for
the many?, English language dominating? Alternative voices silenced > exclusion, lack of facilitation
• Little and big OER (Weller, 2011) also OE as continuum (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014) and EC (Inamorato de Santos, 2016) opening up framework (includes
collaboration and pedagogy but NOT details about collaborative learning how, cross-institutional collab is there)
• MOOCs facilitation as co-learner (new concept Bayne & Ross, 2014) mainly absent in reality
Boundary crossing
• Specialisation creates boundaries
• Engestroem et al (1995) study: boundary crossing creates horizonal working practices in a learning in teams networks context
• Akkermann & Bakker 2011: lit review (178 articles): diversity perspectives/practices; understanding own and others, transforming behaviour/practice
• In Open Ed usually boundary crossing as formal informal (Conole, 2013a)
• Concepts of wider boundary crossing is emerging: Leaky uni (Wall, 2015) uni and local community using dig tech; Levin 2004, democratic HE with public; Hall
& Smyth 2016 unbounded curriculum staff students public
• Algers study (2016) boundary objects (animal slaughtering) diverse voices, reduced conflict, but challenge also conflict and misinterpretation
• “Public facing scholar” (Coughlan, Perrimean 2012) study public wisdom of the crowd in voluntary sector
Cross-institutional dimension
• HEFCE 2011 encouraged also EC 2013, 2015 > cross-institutional collab vital for sector wide growth/innovation (HEFCE 2011) share resources/expertise, also
Scotland ‘Building a Smarter Future’ green paper.
• Study Morgan & Carey (2009) undergrad students Japan, Russia, Canada learning together asynchronous forum, issue with facilitation, positive> diversity
• Orr et al 2015 oER/OEP role for CPD create opportunities for collab, sharing, change practice
Staff-student partnership
• Healey et al 2014) benefits for staff and students, 4 areas to collaborate. Challenging in current climate in UK

Chapter 2 (frameworks, digital tech)
Digital tech for collab learning in HE
• 1960s first networks, when coop/collab learning started in schools, unis (PBL)
• Initially tech used for individual learning, focus on content, software packages
• Then 1993 the web, VLE, 2004 social media, 2007 mobile web > collaboration,
interaction
• “patchwork strategy” Wenger et al (2009)
• Digital visitors and residents (White & Le Cornu, 2011) based on motivations,
choice
• Beetham (2015) staff development needed build digital capacity
Frameworks
• CSCL (computer supported collab learning) only text at the time, individual/collab
learning, community, facilitation.
• Frameworks reviewed, features: facilitator, community, activity, choice
• Asynchronous, synchronous model and mobile
• Video link valuable for engagement
• Language/culture: diversity good for engagement BUT English dominant, can be a
problem for engagement. Difficulties overcome through support (Ou, 2012, phd
study)

Chapter 2 (ac dev)
• Started in 1970 periphery, small, enthusiasts, then government policies led
massification & diversification of HE in UK. Ac dev central stage, professional,
evidence-based to enhance quality of teaching, enhancement, teaching qual, prof
recognitions. UK HE professionalised (Ramsden, 2008) > timeline p.84
• Ac developers, range of approaches needed, managerial problematic, community
makes a difference, longer programmes (PgCer, Parsons et al. 2012) Craword (2009)
staff reach outside institition for CPD after Pgcert disicplinary communities, networks.
Need for internal and external CPD; Popovic (2016) different ac dev models, one of
them is community but internal.
• Dig practices: behind times but change happening. Focus now on building digital
capabilities and community, decentralised, distributed, collaborative (Beetham,
2015), Gunn (2011) > offer needs to be more diverse
• Cross-institutional: seen as driver for innovation, CPD engagement (Pawlyshyn et al
2015), early examples: 1990s in London to connect didn’t work, lack of online
learning and teaching capacity, 1998 collab PgCert in Scotland polytechnics safe
costs/resources; 2012 Gibbs (2012) talks about need for a national dev initiative as
more sustainable solution. More outwards facing CPD, first UK MOOC (Oxford Brooks)
First steps into learning and teaching in HE, my own work 2010 PgCert informal collab
across UK assess/feedback tasks. Findings importance of community and facilitator to
overcome barriers.

Chapter 3
• Research answers questions a. what is happening in the world b. test hypothesis
• Qualitative research open ended, interpretations of phenomena of individuals
• Social science – naturalistic, people and behaviour in the world
• Educational research enhancement of practice RQ1, RQ2 RQ3
• Research paradigm: ontology (what reality is), epistemology (relationship between researcher and
reality), methodology (methods to study reality)
• Subjectivism (Crotty, 1988) interpretative subjective experience = about phemonena
(phenomenology) and how these are experienced (phenomography)
• Positioning of research: subjectivism>phenomenology>phenomenological research
• Phenomenography (Marton 1981) qualitatively different variations of lived experience, focus on
collective. interview data collection, collective case (Stake, 1995) 2 settings, deeper understanding
about cases as they occur naturally, categories of description: all data, all voices iterative process,
guidelines, not a template, final output outcome space, visual representation of logical
relationships between categories.
• Participants depends on study, 20 mentioned in many.
• Trustworthiness, credibility: transcripts sharing, findings sharing with participants and researchers
• Bracketing particially possible: being aware, managing own voice, reflective diary, in interview,
analysis capturing thinking/dilemmas, categories with evidence (quotes)
• Methodological challenges:
– pilot interviewing: tech was a problem, only 1 test from Adobe to Skype
– Survey piloting 3, changes to survey questions (Final; study time added), Initial: work not just education)
– Researcher as participant (bracketing, own courses and relationships)

Chapter 4
• Background information, demographics to construct the collective case study through initial survey
(22 Qs) and final survey 3 (Qs) p. 151
INITIAL SURVEY
• Countries UK and Sweden but also other countries
• Qualifications: Masters, PhD > 84&
• HE working: 88%, other: 13% SMALL
• Informal study 76%, formal 24%
• Age: 76% 35-54
• Gender: 64% female, 36% male
• Prior experience: social media exp 48%, part in open course 60%, online collab 60%, all above 38%
NONE 6 out of 22 individuals
• Engagement intentions: 68% whole course, 36% access resources, interaction elements discussion,
webinar, collab, much lower
• Motivation: 100% prof dev, 100% be a learner, networking 93%, 24% study towards qualifications,
88% facilitator support
FINAL SURVNEY
• Nature of participation: 77% group member, 13% autonomous
• Study time: 54% up to 3 hours, 32% OVER 5 hours
• ASKED IF WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED

Motivations:
• Be learners and experience
learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25)
studies
work
location
age
work place
formal/informal study
Group members 77%
On own 13%
Didn’t participate 5%
Study time
Up to 3 hrs 54%
3-5 hours 14%
Over 5 hours 32%
Final survey responses (n=22)

Chapter 5
Phenomenographic findings
Categories of descriptions directly from analysis and others
from interview questions.
Limited qualitatively different variations
• Bracketing: reflective diary, shared transcripts, chapter 5
with participants. Majority responded recognised their
experience
• 3 Pools of Meaning (course, boundary crossing,
collaboration)
Outcome space: logical relationships among categories,
visualisation
• Area A structural factors
• Area B lived experience

Pool of
Meanings
Categories of description Variations Codes
used in
the
outcome
space
5.2 Pool 1
(Course)
Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientation
Aiding participation
C1.1
Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagement
Fostering engagement
C1.2
Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instruction
Directive and controlling
Facilitative and supportive
C1.3
Open learning as designed for collaboration Constraining
Enabling
Empowering
C1.4
5.3 Pool 2
(Boundary
crossing)
Cross-boundary learning through modes of
participation
As a valued informal learning experience
As a valued mixed mode learning
experience
As a valued opportunity for recognition
C2.1
Cross-boundary learning through time, places and
space
As a disconnected experience
As a continuum
C2.2
Cross-boundary learning through culture and
language
As a barrier
As an enrichment C2.3
Cross-boundary learning through diverse
professional contexts
As initial discomfort
As a catalyst
C2.4
5.4 Pool 3
(Collaboration)
Collaboration as engagement in learning Selective
Immersive
C3.1
Collaboration as a means to shared product
creation
Product-process tension
Fulfilling C3.2
Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of others
Valuing the presence of others
C3.3

6. 1
6.2
experience and how?
Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-
institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning
staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015),
unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries,
informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language,
overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity
helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)
Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker.
Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work,
increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation
brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology
steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller
(2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.
Varied opportunities for engagement, oustide course
boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media
worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-
enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White
& Le Cornu, 2011)
Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner
choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this.
Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors
(White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave,
Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice.
Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small
groups
Social engagement esp for immersive collab important,
sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech,
confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison,
Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social
interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson
1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron comm
important for relationship building (video link).
Especially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing
CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl.
Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on
community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes
build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little
OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)

Chapter 7
• Lit review showed new frameworks are needed. No framework around collab open
learning in cross-institutional ac dev was found
• Reviewed frameworks: commonalities> facilitator support, community, activities,
choice
• My framework
– Dynamic design tool
– Basis for further research activity
– Further exploration of collab open learning
Dimensions: learner engagement patterns, learner needs, design characteristics
Useful for:
• Academic dev: new type of CPD
• Ac staff: opportunity to be learners in new type of CPD before adopting
• Students: learn with staff in partnership
• Public: uni in the community, social good, learning opportunities extended, richer
• Researchers future research in this area linked to dimensions
CC BY NC SA non commercial adaptations allowed

Chapter 8
• Summary of study
collab open learning, call for more openness and cross-institut collab, formal/informal blurring > an alternative to TEF to raise quality
teaching?, we need more outwards facing (Crawford), tech-supp, acad as learners> collab PgCert in Scotland early idea in 1989, then
London joined course example but too risky?
• Contribution
– insights into collab open learning, selective/immersive pattern, online/offline, community, belonging, synch video link
strengthened relationships/commitment
– Cross-boundary dimension important, facilitation, flexible design, collab as a choice, formal/informal, inquiry approach,
community new way of CPD
– Framework: first of this kind. Brings experience and design together to help others design and implement
• Implications
– Academic dev > to review provison, consider outwards facing, cross-institutional, cross-boundary provision
– Academics > more CPD opportunities, networking, experiencing as learners, apply to own practice
– Researchers > framework useful or further studies, linked to specific dimensions of it
• Limitations/reflections
– Most participants in groups.
– Sole researcher, discussion with others useful in phenom research. Gerlese Akerlind says it is ok though for PhD study. I shared
findings with participants
– Development as a phenom. interviewer, over prepared, progressively more organic, pilot also helped.
• Directions of study
– Testing framework
– Case study free data collection
– Facilitator experience

Resources used
• Murray, R. (2003)How to survive your viva, Maidenhead, Phil: Open
University Press
• 13 steps I took to prepare for my viva
http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/phd-viva-preparation-steps
• Top 40 potential viva questions
http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156
• Top 10 questions for the oral PhD viva https://medium.com/advice-
and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/top-ten-questions-for-
the-phd-oral-exam-c3687cc75962
• SWOTting up http://viva-survivors.com/2017/07/swotting-up/
• Loughborough PhD Social and Support Network http://www.lboro-
phd-network.org.uk/links/the-viva/

• Focus on self
• Focus on group
Learner needs
• Process
Collaborating
institutions
Organisation, and
facilitation team
cross-boundary
considerations
Learning and
Teaching approach
Group work and
community
open licensing
Accreditation /
Recognition
and activities
Timing and
scheduling
p.237 framework developed

Pool of
Meanings
Categories of description Variations Codes
used in
the
outcome
space
5.2 Pool 1
(Course)
Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientation
Aiding participation
C1.1
Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagement
Fostering engagement
C1.2
Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instruction
Directive and controlling
Facilitative and supportive
C1.3
Open learning as designed for collaboration Constraining
Enabling
Empowering
C1.4
5.3 Pool 2
(Boundary
crossing)
Cross-boundary learning through modes of
participation
As a valued informal learning experience
As a valued mixed mode learning
experience
As a valued opportunity for recognition
C2.1
Cross-boundary learning through time, places and
space
As a disconnected experience
As a continuum
C2.2
Cross-boundary learning through culture and
language
As a barrier
As an enrichment C2.3
Cross-boundary learning through diverse
professional contexts
As initial discomfort
As a catalyst
C2.4
5.4 Pool 3
(Collaboration)
Collaboration as engagement in learning Selective
Immersive
C3.1
Collaboration as a means to shared product
creation
Product-process tension
Fulfilling C3.2
Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of others
Valuing the presence of others
C3.3
p.162

6. 1
6.2
experience and how?
Cross-disciplinary in place (Parsons et al. 2012), cross-
institutional AND cross-boundary beneficial. Co-learning
staff-students (Healey, 2014). Leaky Uni (Wall, 2015),
unbounded uni (Hall & Smyth, 2016). Blurring boundaries,
informal but to be recognised CPD. Issue language,
overcome with facilitators, supportive peers. Diversity
helped overcome barriers (Mittelmeier, 2016)
Distributed facilitator, also as co-learner, modeller-broker.
Helped initially overcome barriers (tech), scaffold group work,
increased autonomy, peer learning in groups. Facilitation
brought groups together (Wenger, et al. 2009)= technology
steward. Facilitator needed in OEP! Lane (2009), Weller
(2011) this is not always recognised in OEP context.
Varied opportunities for engagement, outside course
boundaries also. Patchwork strategy with social media
worked (Wenger et al. 2009). Invisible not necessary non-
enaggement, engagement can be offline, elsewhere (White
& Le Cornu, 2011)
Elastic design, not imposed worked better. Not PBL, learner
choice (Beetham 2015). Role of facilitator important in this.
Selective – immersive both valuable. Residence-Visitors
(White, Le Cornu, 2012). Peripheral, full participation (Lave,
Wenger, 19991) BUT here not linked to newness but choice.
Issue with process, product, activity-based (inquiry), small
groups
Social engagement esp for immersive collab important,
sense of belonging, overcoming barriers (language, tech,
confidence). Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison,
Andeson, Archer, 2000, 2010)- social dimension. Social
interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson Johnson
1999) negative behav did escalate, synchron comm
important for relationship building (video link).
Especially for immersive collab. Course not ending, ongoing
CPD, belonging (Craword,2009) – external discipl.
Networks/communities > new model of ac dev based on
community idea (Parsons et al. 2012) – longer programmes
build community. Cross-institutional, cross-boundary, little
OER, grassroots development (Weller, 2011)

Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Similar a Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest (20)

Más de Chrissi Nerantzi

Más de Chrissi Nerantzi (20)

Último

Último (20)

Towards a cross boundary collaborative open learning framework latest

Notas del editor