Does project focus influence challenges and opportunities of open online education? A sub-group analysis of group-concept mapping data

Openness in education is not a consistent term or value since “open” is used to describe various things and often means different things to different individuals. In a research context, it is important to identify the many interpretation(s) and perspectives of openness being investigated, especially since the underlying ideas behind these different interpretations and contexts can yield different results. Not much empirical research on the implementation aspects of open education exists, especially comparing open educational resources (OER) and open online education (OOE). This empirical study addresses this gap, exploring identification and prioritization of organizational challenges and opportunities of two subgroups of projects (i.e. OER focused or OOE focused) within various higher education institutions in The Netherlands. The main research question in this study is: Does the project character (OER focus vs. OOE focus) of innovation projects lead to perceived differences by actors involved in their implementation? Findings indicate that there are differences in conceptual as well as practical representation between the two groups. These findings imply that higher education institutions need to internally adapt to the needs of various manifestations of “openness” to be able to fully benefit from opportunities and overcome challenges.

[1]  Pia Borlund,et al.  Matrix comparison, Part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry , 2003 .

[3]  Jesper W. Schneider,et al.  Matrix comparison, Part 1: Motivation and important issues for measuring the resemblance between proximity measures or ordination results , 2007 .

[4]  Jeremy Knox,et al.  Open education: the need for a critical approach , 2015 .

[5]  C. Cronin.  Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education , 2017 .

[6]  C. Tømte.  MOOCs in teacher education: institutional and pedagogical change? , 2018, European Journal of Teacher Education.

[7]  Mohammad Zohrabi.  Mixed Method Research: Instruments, Validity, Reliability and Reporting Findings , 2013 .

[8]  J. Reich,et al.  Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses , 2015, Science.

[9]  T. Waltz.  Group concept mapping , 2020 .

[10]  J. Hyland.  Open Education: a slogan examined , 1979 .

[11]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. , 1989 .

[12]  R. Sternberg.  What Is an “Expert Student?” , 2003 .

[13]  Hendrik Drachsler,et al.  Designing Learning Outcomes for Handoff Teaching of Medical Students Using Group Concept Mapping: Findings From a Multicountry European Study , 2015, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[14]  Karen A. Blase,et al.  Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Implementation Research Network. , 2012 .

[15]  Martin Weller,et al.  The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it doesn't feel like victory , 2020 .

[16]  V. Rolfe.  Open Educational Resources: Staff Attitudes and Awareness , 2012 .

[17]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Adopting the Integrative Model of Behaviour Prediction to explain teachers’ willingness to use ICT: a perspective for research on teachers’ ICT usage in pedagogical practices , 2013 .

[18]  Mary Kane,et al.  Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. , 2012, Evaluation and program planning.

[19]  J. C. Muñoz,et al.  OER: A European Policy Perspective. , 2014 .

[20]  Laura Czerniewicz,et al.  MOOC—making and open educational practices , 2017, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[21]  Kathleen M. T. Collins,et al.  Securing a Place at the Table , 2012 .

[22]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[23]  K. Pushpanadham,et al.  Upscaling the number of learners, fragmenting the role of teachers: How do massive open online courses (MOOCs) form new conditions for learning design? , 2018, International Review of Education.

[24]  Jeremy Knox.  The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education technology , 2013 .

[25]  Hans Hagen,et al.  Methods for Presenting Statistical Information: The Box Plot , 2006, VLUDS.

[26]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  Concept Mapping as an Alternative Approach for the Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Responses , 2002 .

[27]  Jeremy Knox.  Five critiques of the open educational resources movement , 2013 .

[28]  Donald A. Jackson,et al.  How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test , 2001, Oecologia.

[29]  Marco Kalz,et al.  Eliciting the challenges and opportunities organizations face when delivering open online education: A group-concept mapping study , 2018, Internet High. Educ..

[30]  Trevor F. Cox,et al.  Interpreting stress in multidimensional scaling , 1990 .

[31]  Fredrick W. Baker.  An Alternative Approach: Openness in Education Over the Last 100 Years , 2017 .

[32]  Donald A. Jackson,et al.  Variable selection in large environmental data sets using principal components analysis , 1999 .

[33]  Mary Kane,et al.  Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation , 2006 .

[34]  Marco Kalz,et al.  Lifelong Learning and its support with new technologies , 2015 .

[35]  A. Onwuegbuzie,et al.  The Validity Issue in Mixed Research , 2006 .

[36]  Scott R. Rosas.  Multi-map comparison for group concept mapping: an approach for examining conceptual congruence through spatial correspondence , 2017 .

[37]  W. Penuel,et al.  Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design , 2011 .

[38]  Kate O’Connor,et al.  MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education , 2014 .

[39]  Panagiotis Zervas,et al.  A hierarchical framework for open access to education and learning , 2014, Int. J. Web Based Communities.