As a developer of online open education resources that provide basic information about Western music theory, notation, and acoustics, I undertook an action research project with the long-term goal of creating resources that were more accessible, particularly to independent learners pursuing their own music-making goals. In order to better understand the situations and perspectives of real-world learner stakeholders, I sought participants among the self-motivated users of my open education resources, offering active help in designing and carrying out inquiries based on their goals. Eleven long-term participants provided insights that have subsequently affected my efforts to design more accessible open education resources, but the course of the study also revealed tensions and challenges related to the online action research methodology. I have reported elsewhere the study results as they relate to online music education. This paper focuses on action research issues raised in the course of the study, including open versus closed online actions, reaching disadvantaged communities and learners, and consciousness-raising at a distance.
BaraniukR. G. (2008) Challenges and opportunities for the open education movement. In: IiyoshiT.KumarM. S. V. (eds) Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge, Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 229–246.
2.
Bartlett, A. J. (2013). Innovation in incapacity: Education, technique, subject. Digital Culture & Education, 4(3), 2–17.
3.
BreslerL. (1995) Ethnography, phenomenology and action research in music education. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning6(3): 4–16.
4.
BruceB. C.BishopA. P. (2002) Using the Web to support inquiry-based literacy development. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy45(8): 706–714.
5.
Brydon-MillerM.MaguireP. (2009) Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research17(1): 79–93. doi: 10.1080/09650790802667469.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (2009) Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the new generation, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
DeweyJ. (1934) Art as experience, New York, NY: Minton, Balch & Company.
10.
DeweyJ. (1938/1997) Experience and education, New York, NY: Touchstone.
11.
Feldstein, M. & Masson, P. (2006, January). Unbolting the chairs: Making learning management systems more flexible. eLearn Magazine: Education and Technology in Perspective, [online], 1, 2. Retrieved from http://www.elearnmag.org/index.cfm.
12.
FreireP. (1970/2004) Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York, NY: Continuum.
13.
GreenL. (2002) How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education, Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
14.
HarleyD. (2008) Why understanding the use and users of open education matters. In: IiyoshiT.KumarM. S. V. (eds) Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge, Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 197–211.
15.
HerrK.AndersonG. L. (2005) The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (2005) Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In: DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 559–603.
17.
LaneA. (2009) The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning10(5): Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index/php/irrodl.
18.
LiyanagunawardenaT. R.WilliamsS. A.AdamsA. A. (2013) The impact and reach of MOOCs: A developing countries’ perspective. ELearning Papers33. Retrieved from www.elearningpapers.eu.
19.
MisraP. K. (2013) Pedagogical quality enrichment in OER-based courseware: Guiding principles. Open Praxis5(2): 123–134.
20.
Music for All Foundation. (2004). The sound of silence: The unprecedented decline of music education in California public schools. Retrieved from http://music-for-all.org/sos.html.
21.
MyersD. E. (2008) Freeing music education from schooling: Toward a lifespan perspective on music learning and teaching. International Journal of Community Music1(1): 49–61. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.1.1.49/1.
22.
PetersJ. M.TaylorJ. E.DoiM. M. (2009) Self-directed learning and action research. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning6(2): 23–39.
23.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition. London, England: Sage Publications.
24.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds). (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
Rosell-AguilarF. (2013) Podcasting for language learning through iTunes U: The learner’s view. Language Learning and Technology17(3): 74–93.
26.
Schmidt-Jones, C. (2012). An open education resource supports a diversity of inquiry-based learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning13(1), 1–16.
27.
Schmidt-Jones, C. (2016a). Barriers to self-motivated conceptual music learning: Activity theory as a framework for comparing dissimilar cases. Music Education Research, 16(2). doi: 10.1080/14613808.2016.1249362.
28.
Schmidt-Jones, C. (2016b). An online participatory action research inquiry into online inquiry-based music learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/5130 (accessed 27 September 2016).
29.
Schmidt-Jones, C. (forthcoming). Open ends and means: Inquiry as a link between formal music concepts and informal music learning. International Journal of Music Education.
van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2000). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco. Retrieved from http://web.nmsu.edu/∼comstudy/tis.pdf.
32.
WaldronJ. (2011) Locating narratives in postmodern spaces: A cyber ethnographic field study of informal music learning in online community. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education10(2): 31–60.
33.
WellsG. (2001) Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
34.
WengerE.WhiteN.SmithJ. D. (2009) Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities, Portland, OR: CPsquare.
35.
ZeichnerK. M.NoffkeS. E. (2001) Practitioner research. In: RichardsonV. (eds) Handbook of research on teaching, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 298–330.
