Previous work on the use of open educational resources in K–12 classrooms has generally focused on issues related to cost. The current study takes a more expansive view of openness that also accounts for adaptation and sharing in authentic classroom contexts. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study The study seeks to understand what a group of practicing teachers who have been introduced to an expansive vision of openness in practice perceive to be its major potentials and barriers.
Setting
This study took place in two settings: 1) a series of structured summer open education institutes and 2) teachers’ authentic classroom contexts 6 months after the institutes. Population/Participants/Subjects A group of practicing K–12 elementary and secondary teachers (n = 101) self-selected to participate in the institutes and the study.
Intervention/Program/Practice
Institutes were focused, 3-day events wherein teachers constructed PLCs for learning about open education and applying their understanding toward creating open educational resources for their classrooms.
Research Design
This mixed methods study consisted of phenomenological methods for collecting and analyzing qualitative data from a large group and survey analysis and inferential statistics for clarifying results and determining unification of voice among participants.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection consisted of a series of large focus group / incubator sessions, an evaluative survey, and a follow-up survey. Items for the follow-up survey were constructed out of emergent themes from the focus group / incubator sessions.
Findings/Results
Results revealed that participants uniformly believed that openness offers pedagogical, economic, and professional potentials for practice, but that major barriers to diffusion exist at the macro and local levels due to the political and economic realities of the teaching profession.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Openness in practice has great promise for K–12 teaching and learning, but educators, researchers, and legislators should reexamine the meaning of open in educational practice to consider its benefits beyond cost and advocate for those practices that lead to greater freedom and professionalization of teaching.
AtkinsD., BrownJ. S., & HammondA. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities [Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation]. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf
3.
BakerJ., ThiersteinJ., FletcherK., KaurM., & EmmonsJ. (2009). Open textbook proof-of-concept via Connexions. International Review of Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/633
4.
BaraniukR. G. (2008). Challenges and opportunities for the open education movement: A Connexions case study. In IiyoshiT., & KumarM. S. V. (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 229—246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BlissT. J., HiltonJ., WileyD., & ThanosK. (2013). The cost and quality of online open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and students. First Monday, 18, 1—7.
BonkC. (2011). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
BrownJ. S., & AdlerR. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16—32.
9.
CareyT., & HanleyG. L. (2008). Extending the impact of open educational resources through alignment with pedagogical content knowledge and institutional strategy: Lessons learned from the MERLOT community experience. In IiyoshiT., & KumarM. S. V. (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 181—196). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). About the standards [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
FiniA. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/643
19.
FurloughM. (2010). Open access, education research, and discovery. Teachers College Record, 112(10), 2623—2648.
20.
GarnettF., & EcclesfieldN. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.7795
HallW., & CalleryP. (2011). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257—272.
24.
HiltonJ., & LamanC. (2012). One college's use of an open psychology textbook. Open Learning, 27(3), 265—272.
25.
HoughtonJ., & SheehanP. (2006). The economic impact of enhanced access to research findings. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf
26.
HowleyA., HowleyM., HendricksonK., BelcherJ., & HowleyC. (2012). Stretching to survive: District autonomy in an age of dwindling resources. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(3), 1—18. Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/27-3.pdf
27.
IiyoshiT., & KumarM. S. V. (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
28.
KimmonsR. (2014). Developing open education literacies with practicing K-12 teachers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6).
29.
KimmonsR. (2015). Emergent forms of technology-influenced scholarship. In Khosrow-PourM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition (pp. 2481–2488). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
30.
KopR., & FournierH. (2010). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 2—20.
LaaksoM., WellingP., BukvovaH., NymanL., BjörkB.-C., & HedlundT. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
33.
MerriamS. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51—60.
34.
MorseJ. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In BryantA., & CharmazK. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 229—244). London, UK: SAGE.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38654317.pdf
41.
PawlowskiJ. M. (2007). The quality adaptation model: Adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1 for learning, education, and training. Educational Technology & Society10, 3—16.
42.
PetridesL., JimesC., Middleton-DetznerC., WallingJ., & WeissS. (2011). Open textbook adoption and use: Implications for teachers and learners. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning.26(1), 39—49.
43.
PolkinghorneD. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
RobinsonT. J., FischerL., WileyD., & HiltonJ.III (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning outcomes. Educational Researcher, 43(7), 341—351. doi:10.3102/0013189X14550275
45.
RogersE. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
46.
SealeyL. (1976). Open education: Fact or fiction?Teachers College Record, 77(4), 615—630.
SmithL. A. H. (1997). “Open education” revisited: Promise and problems in American educational reform (1967–1976). Teachers College Record, 99(2), 371—415.
49.
SobelH. W., & TejirianE. (1973). The case for open education. Teachers College Record, 74(4), 559—565.
SternP., & PorrC. (2011). Essentials of accessible grounded theory. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
52.
StraussA. L., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
53.
TonksD., WestonS., WileyD., & BarbourM. (2013). “Opening” a new kind of school: The story of the Open High School of Utah. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 255—271. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1345/2419
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
58.
VeletsianosG., & KimmonsR. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166—189.
59.
VeletsianosG., & KimmonsR. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent technocultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766—774.
60.
VeletsianosG. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators' social media participation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 639—651.
61.
WalkerE. (2007). Evaluating the results of open education. In IiyoshiT., & KumarM. S. V. (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 77—88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
WileyD., & GreenC. (2012). Why openness in education? In OblingerD. (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 81—89). Washington, DC: Educause.
66.
WileyD., HiltonJ., EllingtonS., & HallT. (2012). A preliminary examination of the cost savings and learning impacts of using open textbooks in middle and high school science classes. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 262—276. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1153/2256
