The project approach: networked practice and learning from peers

Open and networked practice

The final project artefact is intended to be an open educational resource, so developing the project in an open environment was a meaningful way to explore and role model online participation. Online networks and open practices are an integral part of my personal (as a student) and professional (as a practitioner) world. Four main platforms were used to inform and develop the project: the Open University, Twitter, a personal blog and open journals. As the project was situated in my professional context, using established networks outside of the Open University was important. Other practitioners and Scouting volunteers presented different viewpoints, and diversity of opinion was helpful in critically reviewing the project development.

This personal blog was used as the central point with which to share the development of the project. I hope the blog has afforded participation in digital ‘creation’, alongside the development my digital identity. It does have a limited audience, but sharing posts through Twitter has increased this and also helped to extend the discussions (thanks all). New and existing contacts have aided reflection and signposted to further research and resources. Twitter was also beneficial when looking at the macro-environmental factors. Using the hashtag facility as a search tool highlighted current debates, projects and interested people. Furthermore, it afforded research on the move as posts could be read or bookmarked for future review from a mobile device. The main impact in being more open was that practitioners outside of the Open University engaged in the debates. This gave assurance, credibility and confidence in the project’s relevance for the wider world. 

Creating posters and peer review

The creation of a conference poster presented a chance to explore new, online, multimedia tools and consider alternative forms of digital creativity.

Multimedia methods

In face-to-face practice a variety of methods and media are used to deliver educational material and I wanted to mirror this within the project. I wanted to tell a story, but to keep the messages simple and reflective of core values, in order to engage and motivate the intended audience. Mayer’s (2005) cognitive theory of multi-media learning however, reminds us that we have separate, limited, channels for processing auditory and visual information and we need to get the mix of media right in order to actively process information and create coherent mental representations. 

As Scouting is about ‘learning by doing’, I adopted this approach. By experimenting with different media formats and presenting them early for review, I was able to determine the most appropriate approach. Animations provoked more emotional responses and recognition of their story-telling potential. The final decision to use a slideshow based animation was a result of asking Scouting volunteers to feedback on two different kinds of animation, in order to get a different perspective. They viewed the slideshow animations as more interactive and engaging, with greater potential for re-purposing.

The role of feedback

The process of engaging in feedback, on our own as well as others work, aided poster development. Feedback developed from simple comments to more detailed and constructive guidance as we engaged with other student’s material and reflected back on our own. A good example of this is how later feedback often asked about the theme and the artefact, as more students realised this was not explicit within their own posters. The first poster version created provoked attention-grabbing, motivational responses and recognised the impact of the visuals and logical approach it afforded. However feedback also helped develop the poster so that it became more explicit in the concepts it was exploring and included clearer links to the project questions and outcomes. Once again, feedback from outside of the Open University was also sought, to ensure that the approach and messages maintained a wider relevance, but also kept the wider network updated with the project progress. The process of feedback also helped in determining potential accessible alternatives. Following feedback and discussion with fellow students in OULive, an audio text version was created, which responded to comments and a simple slideshow version, with embedded alternative text for screen readers, for those who needed time to navigate the slides or visual descriptions of the content. The process of giving and receiving feedback has therefore been invaluable in critically evaluating the development of project resources.

So thanks all for being part of the project too!

Identity and openness

Last week kicked off on Twitter with Tim Berners Lee talking about a new model for privacy on the internet. The discussion focussed on the need for people to take control and ownership of data, and that the fear of big data and being spied on has make us distrusting......

...therefore do we need to be more comfortable in sharing information and does there need to be better ways of protecting our privacy? 

Of course, when apps request potential access to your data, without telling you what they might use it for, it’s easy to see why people might be distrustful. I was always taught that data protection meant not collecting data that you don’t need, and telling people what you are going to do with that data ( see the recent Whisper stories for an example of companies approaches to privacy and changing terms and conditions).

We often don’t pay much attention to the permissions requests when we sign up to new services. There is a growing distrust of what companies are doing with our data, and I wonder if that has a knock on effect to our ideas of identity and openness?

At the other end of the extreme Pyschology today published an article on why we over share online and the disinhibition effect. The article talks about how anonymity and invisibility cause people to behave in very different ways. It ends however with a bit about authority and how people can feel there is more equality online so they feel more empowered to say the things they may not say offline. I wonder if that is true when it comes to peer creation and peer review?

Most e-safety training starts with asking people if they have googled themselves, or what kind of digital footprint they are creating. (For the record, my take is that we should create positive footprints online, and therefore I encourage adults and young people to use the net creatively, actively and positively : if they want to). Which moves me on to perceptions of others. Most humans worry about what others think of them, even those who say they don’t. When asking a group of teenagers about freedom online this weekend, they were very clear that they had freedom, but that with that freedom comes responsibility; to act appropriately , but also to be called into account if you do something wrong. They also told me how they managed their media. So if they were friends with family on Facebook, then they self-edit what they post there.

But what does this mean for the developing, networked professional? As this week on H818 is about Openness and Privacy, it seems right to be thinking about what this means to me. In the “offline world” I approach people, tasks and work in very different ways, depending on my colleagues, the audience or the environment.  It’s a bit like deciding what clothes to put on. Different audiences require different approaches, in order to engage at the right level (I am thinking about power here), be culturally sensitive, and to communicate the right messages. I am pretty sure this is true when it comes to digital scholarship too. You have to figure out which are the groups you need to join, how to communicate and which communities/resources/publishers are the ones that you need. But where do you start if you are outside of academia. This is something that I will be investigating.

In fact, these thoughts of identity pervade all aspects of our life, whether it’s getting a job, a partner, or a publishing deal. Some of the things that I am involved in outside of work, are partly as a result of what I do in work. I am lucky that I have found a passion in my work, which means I want to part of the bigger debate and I want to be an active voice in making change. However, does my involvement in these things impact my work? I am after all a spoke-person for my organisation, but it doesn’t mean that I am always talking on behalf of my organisation. Hopefully, given that we are values-based, there won’t be too much conflict, but I have become acutely aware of this, and just as I wrestle with my identity and openness as an online practitioner, so I wrestle with my identity and openness as an “offline” practitioner.  And this takes me back to the end of the last blog post. Sometimes, we cannot decide what we share or how open we are, as our jobs (think teachers using Facebook) or circumstances (say foster parents) tell us otherwise.

“My job does not define me”. This was one of my take-away notes following our staff conference, where we were talking about collaboration and team-working across teams and finding and developing expertise. But in order for people to understand this, they need to engage with me, talk to me, work with me, and see my creations. And I think this is the same journey that one must take as an online practitioner. I will be defined by what people see, what I do and how I engage.  

I want to end this post with this fab video from iDea. I think it's a great poem and visual about collaboration and some of the questions that I have (despite me not really be part of that generation)