OERlabs Openbook/Lessons lOERned (MSD)

Field of tension between open discussion opportunities and presentable outcomes
At the end of an exhausting and labour-intensive dialogue process, the usual questions naturally arise as with any project work: How is the result to be assessed? What did participants learn, what initiates others to implement the project themselves? What could have been done differently? What was made possible by which structures, what, if anything, was prevented? Last but not least, the big question is whether the format "Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue" (MSD) was, in retrospect, the appropriate format to address a topic such as OER in teacher training at university level? In order to approach the answer to this question, in the following article the text by Felix Dodds and Emily Benson (2003) will be discussed, with which the conceptual work began.

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues as a flexible tool
It quickly became clear during the planning phase and through the text by Dodds and Benson that there is no standardized MSD process, but that the process can and should be designed according to the context. This flexibility in design was heavily utilized in the OERlabs project and the approach outlined by Dodds and Benson was partially modified.



A dialogue appointment in Cologne thus turned into several appointments in an entire process flow.

The MSD in the OERlabs should, however, be somewhat more active, open and experimental in contrast to the university committee work, for which, among other things, cooperative visualization or drawing tasks were also assigned to groups of participants. In the OERlabs, "dialogue" therefore means more than articulation in text.

The "equity"-aspect: student participation
According to Dodds and Benson, however, an important aspect of an MSD is that of equality and fairness: participants should be able to enter into dialogue with one another on the same level. We have always taken this claim into account in our planning, especially when it comes to the stakeholder group of students, which unfortunately often receives little attention. For the time being, however, we have to come to the conclusion that our strategies for inviting students to participate have hardly been fruitful: In the BFP seminars, open invitations were issued by the lecturers, but these were not received well. However, it is to be noted positively: A student teacher with previous OER experience was present out of self-interest, a student teacher from the seminars mentioned above gave a keynote speech about his seminar product. This was highly appreciated by the dialogue participants. Student employees from Sandra Hofhues' team also took part in several appointments, which was made possible by the equal dialogue format. For the closing event, an intermedia student, dialogue participants and student employees participated. In our opinion, their student perspective was followed with great interest by the participants.

As far as student participation (cf. Headnotes (Student Participation)) is concerned, we believe there is a need for better strategies of communication, invitation and involvement of students in such a process. If necessary, early involvement may be appropriate, e.g. in a seminar context in which the position of the students on the MSD topic is worked out and the relevance of the dialogue is introduced. Last but not least, this is also about building trust.

The "equity"-aspect: temporary dissolving of hierarchies?
It was not only with regard to the students that the general goal in conducting the dialogues was to open up discourse spaces that were as equal as possible. In order to achieve this goal, the moderator provided the participants with corresponding guidelines and wishes: on the one hand, a "you" rule (i.e. this would be an informal way of addressing people during discussions, as the German language distinguishes between formal and informal speech) was to be negotiated within the groups in the later working phase, and on the other hand, each round was to be discussed with a new person in the first working phase ("questions of inspiration"). The first hurdles should fall through this entertaining and yet interesting discussion task.

How well this worked was looked at by Birgit Schlotter in her bacherlor thesis „Dialogformate an Hochschulen am Beispiel OERlabs“ (2018) (engl. Forms of Dialogue in Universities on the Example of OERlabs). She draws the folowing conclusion.

Communication and preparation: missing concrete, urgent decision-making?
Looking back, the MSD process "OER meets good teaching" was very ambitious all things considered, but during the individual meetings it was formulated thematically and in terms of content and kept specific. The aim was to facilitate not only the debate on "OER as material" but also the discussion on good teaching and open practices. While the understanding of education or a "big picture" as an aspect of the dialogue should not be missing (cf. the MSD1 event), in our experience the goal of the process should be communicated more clearly and easily. Here we could think more in the direction of a "decision-making process" or a "policy discussion" in the sense of Dodds and Benson, even if this only takes place fictitiously.

The term "multi-stakeholder dialogue" has often caused a lack of understanding among the persons addressed; it is advisable to use an alternative term for communication in advance. Furthermore, we recommend to put energy into a communication concept, which may also show incentives and outcomes for participation. Furthermore, it should be communicated that the participants can contribute their own problems. However, not only individual employees must be convinced in advance, but also managers in the institutes/organisational units. These two target groups should be considered and differentiated. To illustrate this: One stakeholder clearly signalled to us that the dialogue had very little relevance for the respective institute, since the results were not linked to a decision-making authority and thus the staff, as well as internal resources were needed for other, (from the point of view of the respective institution) more effective projects. Similarly, letters of intent offered little guarantee of long-term and sustainable commitment.

The communication and activation for participation can always be taken into consideration at the beginning of the project and started early, telephone or personal enquiries with the participants as well as mail/internal mail communication (confidence building) can be planned as an elaborate work package. This can be worthwhile, since one of the results of the MSD was that many actors at the University of Cologne have to make common practices possible and that OER issues do not only concern individual persons.

Missing personal connection with target audience and scheduling issues
As a promotional project, which was part of a junior professorship in the field of media didactics, the lack of access to the target group from the employees' point of view proved to be a great challenge, for example to inform participants personally about upcoming appointments or to obtain expectations and feedback. This raises the question for decision-makers as to where MSD coordination can best be anchored.

The chronically prevailing lack of time (or the low relevance for the dialogue, depending on the interpretation) also makes it difficult to find an appointment date. At each of the four dates a different composition of participants were present, so a continuous process is of course not possible from a didactic point of view.

First considerations here would be the recommendation to focus on all-day, intensive events and to open and close the process there. Events from the field of "design thinking" could serve as inspiration. This recommendation is also relevant in view of the fact that very few participation activities took place in the virtual phases; the dialogue was conducted mainly face-to-face. The open and additional offer OpenLabs was also not accepted by the participants.

Open atmosphere is valued: Making it the core element of the MSD?
We always received positive feedback for the fact that there was enough time and space on the dates to get into open discussions with people and to exchange opinions and ideas. However, if there is a need for more intensive discussions, it can also be advantageous to offer full-day events (e.g. for university staff, the conference format is mostly familiar). This time seems to be hardly available in the everyday university life of the University of Cologne or in committees rather the focus is put on the individual perspective of the institute and resources, which was at least our assumption. The multi-stakeholder dialogue can therefore serve as a "space opener" to help people network and also to generate unexpected outcomes such as project cooperation, partnerships, financing opportunities, etc. The dialogue between the various stakeholders can also be used as a means of creating a network of contacts. The open and friendly atmosphere as well as the supply of drinks, coffee and snacks should therefore always be taken into account. As a project implementer, you are at the same time the host and thus primarily responsible for creating an open, friendly and appreciative atmosphere. Even if this sounds banal, it is precisely these banalities, such as a personal greetings, a cup of coffee or a piece of cake, that set you apart from typical committee meetings at universities. The MSD should not be confused with a loose coffee break without outcome, but offers a structural framework for the exchange of perspectives, experiences and opinions.

Furthermore, problem orientation can be a big advantage: By enabling participants to bring along concrete questions and problems from their everyday university life, the MSD can also be distinguished and highlighted from other formats. In our case, the introduction of their own problems in the second phase of the process was certainly present, but it offers potential if several people already work practically with OER or pursue open practices as a goal.

Becoming contextualizers: avoiding "trainer"-role
One challenge that we met more often as a project team was the wish of the participants to have proper explainations about the correct handling of copyright issues and OER. We have always tried to refer to self-learning offers or offers such as OERinForm for teachers. The examples of the student teacher Sebastian Arz (>> LINK presentation at MSD3) as well as the conception of the seminars by ZfL employees of the University of Cologne show that one can become acquainted with the topic OER quite independently. A lack of information does not exist thus under any circumstances in relation to OER and OEP, rather there is a surplus of information for this.

We have concluded from this that there is a legitimate desire for contextualization, i.e. the identification of several discussion threads and debates that go beyond pure information or specific application knowledge. In this respect, from the second MSD date we also saw ourselves as "contextualisers", as Sandra Hofhues described several scientific references in her brief impulse.

We have also always been guided by the principle that we do not want to provide any solutions or answers, but that these should be developed jointly by the participants (in the sense of Dodds and Benson "build consensus around complex, multifaceted and in some cases, divisive issues."). For this reason, an external moderation was used for 3 out of 4 dates in order to carry out the dates as freely as possible from the project's (i.e. project staff) own logic. In our opinion, this "withdrawal" worked well, but if necessary, partners should be found directly who offer further training or introductory seminars on OER during the period of the MSD.

Podcasting as accompanying documentation tool
During the dialogue process, the academic staff recorded podcast episodes, which were primarily intended to reflect on the dates and not to summarise the content of the discussions. This decision was made, among other things, because the protected space was to be maintained during the dialogue events. For the following projects, it could be considered whether the discussions could be partially opened and the podcast could take on a "rapporteur" role, so that participants who are not present could inform themselves about the contents of the discussion. In addition, the podcast should provide an opportunity for external feedback on questions to be obtained. Christian Friedrich, for example, advised us on the topic of "design thinking" after a Podcast-mention via Skype.

What is the product?
Which product has an open process? This question is certainly a classic to which there is no concrete answer. And yet decision-makers are particularly interested in what outcomes can be expected if considerable resources are to be invested in an MSD. For Dodds and Benson, there are various options such as "facilitator's summary, an agreement text or a set of recommendations". For example, all stakeholders should accept the final document resulting from the dialogue and communicate it internally. Since the virtual phase between the third and the final date was only used by a few people for participation, the visible end product was the Impact/Effort Matrix, which was primarily developed during the attendance time of the third date within one hour of working time. The matrix represented the core result for us that many solution ideas are located in the area of what is feasible in the short term by the participants. These measures could also have a potentially high impact. Even if the matrix has worked well for structuring, much more time should be given to create a more comprehensive document. We therefore supplemented this matrix with a 10-point plan for OER at the University of Cologne, which Sandra Hofhues designed based on our observations during the process. In MSD coordination, one always moves between keeping the process open and leading it to a certain outcome that can be communicated to the outside world.

What remains from the MSD? Who is committed at the UoC?
Finally, the great openness and appreciation that we have come across is a good signal for follow-up projects to promote OER and open practices. Higher education projects do not necessarily have to offer traditional formats such as meetings or conferences where people primarily listen. In our opinion, open formats that focus on the activity of the participants and provide rather short inputs and impulses were almost always positively accepted.

Nevertheless, it remains to be noted that the topic of OER and further debates currently have a rather low priority at the University of Cologne and concrete measures are not planned in the near future. This can be seen, for example, in the - from our point of view - lack of support and further education for copyright issues concerning teaching or student products. If OER is really to penetrate the breadth of the UzK, the stakeholders here would have to jointly develop viable solutions. The multi-stakeholder dialogue showed that experience and diverse expertise are already available in the individual organisational units and could possibly be better networked. An event format such as multi-stakeholder dialogue is certainly not a panacea here, but in our experience it can potentially make an important contribution to the exchange of perspectives and to personal and institutional networking as well as serious reflection on education.

Multiple stakeholders - especially in teacher training


Each of the three MSD at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern (TUK) has its own focus. The first MSD focuses on the stakeholders at the TUK and the chances for OER in the university context. The second focuses on OER in teacher training and the last MSD focuses on OER in the region. Each focus addresses new stakeholders, expands the project perspective on OER and facilitates exchange and networking among the participants. Since the MSD are open to all interested parties and also appeal to previous participants, suggestions and discussions from the MSD are not limited to the TUK and our project. This decision not to confine the stakeholders to the TU alone, but to look at the entire teacher education chain in the course of the MSD, seemed to be understandable from the logic of teacher education. However, it provided for one or two difficulties in the implementation - from the acquisition of the respective stakeholders (via e-mail and telephone) to the question of what knowledge can be assumed and the question(s) of how people can get involved in an open process. Thus, the MSD were always structured in the same way within the process: Input - discussion phase - collection of ideas - subsequent documentation. This was followed by podcast sequences for the time in between. This made it possible to deal with the topic of OER in teacher education over the course of a semester. However, it turned out that there were only a few people who participated in all three MSDs: For example, the university library, the VCRP or the eTeaching Service Centre were represented at all meetings, the Centre for Teacher Education could only be reached once. Teachers inside and/or schools felt more addressed by the second round table. For internal project reasons, the last round table had to take place during the summer holidays, which is bad for the participation of schools. The planning and objectives of the individual MSD had already been set for the podcast "The multi-stakeholder dialogue from the point of view of the TU Kaiserslautern" (Fig. 1 ). They are explained in this Podcast, as already mentioned, and then also converted. Neither at the planning nor at the goals something changed, except in detail questions, in the course of the project. The mutual influence of the MSD and the three lab formats on each other has been planned and expected right from the start. Both event types complement each other in that the MSD captures the perspectives of the stakeholders, their needs and problems, the lab formats react to them, go into the practice of material production and bring their experiences and materials back into the multi-stakeholder dialogues.

Incorporate dialogues-in-between with the help of podcasting and blogging
Since the MSDs are linked to other events of the project, the dialogues that have been created there should not stop after the events. In order to maintain the dialogues in between the MSD events, they will be initiated on Twitter during the event and provided with new impulses by podcasts or blog entries after the events. MSD participants, supported by podcasts or blog entries, can bring dialogues into their organisation or institute and thus return impulses at the next MSD or other OERlabs events. For newcomers, the opportunity for intermediate dialogues represents an introduction to the topic and the status of the discussion. Furthermore, blog entries and podcasts are used to make project processes transparent, to provide an outlook on future developments and to document current developments.

With the exception of the podcast on the first MSD, all other blog posts and podcast episodes were created after the respective multi-stakeholder dialogues. At least one communication measure is planned for each MSD. Published are: one podcast episode for the first MSD, two podcast episodes and one blog post for the second MSD and one blog post for the third and last MSD. For the podcast recordings, it was very helpful to take immediate advantage of any opportunities that arose. Thus the podcast episode developed out of a discussion over the planning and conception of the MSD in Cologne and Kaiserslautern, which is also addressed in the Podcast. Directly after the second MSD the recording of the following episode was organized. With some temporal distance the blogentries are written. Both formats are published, as soon as they are finished.

In the podcastepisode belonging to the reflection of the first MSD the overview of the course of the project and possible further events take up a lot of space. They arouse attention and curiosity, but also make the goals of the project more vivid. For example, goals are formulated there such as broadening and opening one's own perspective. The publications of all podcast episodes are also designed as advertising for subsequent events. The MSD episodes are intended to address specific stakeholders.

Two further podcast episodes, which are thematically linked to the MSDs, are located chronologically before the second MSD. In episode 15 students are interviewed in the voluntary Open Labs of the TUK about their self-made game board and their experiences with its creation. Within the framework of the MSD, the project is dependent on the perspectives on OER of as many stakeholders as possible, including students. One part of the student perspective is their self-produced materials and experiences from "lived" practice. The participation of our tutors in the MSD made it possible to bring in the experiences of previous OpenLabs. In order to give the participating students the opportunity to speak, their experiences are included in the MSDs and other events such as the mobile labs as a freely available podcast sequence, while the self-created materials are available on site.

The documentation of the second MSD with the focus on teacher*internal education approaches the content and status of the discussion anecdotally in Podcastepisode. It classifies these into teacher*internal education and school practice. The corresponding blog entry is reminiscent, among other things, of the paper tablecloths described, the thoughts recorded on them discuss the path to a culture of error that also understands failure as an opportunity and possibility of learning. The ideas, thoughts and suggestions recorded in the documentation cannot all be taken up, but they are now available as a learning opportunity and for improvement. Regardless of whether participants* want to continue their thoughts from the MSD with the help of the documentation or the OER community takes up suggestions from the documentation.

Managing expectation for OERlabs project
From the feedback received during and after the events, one wish of the participants regularly stands out: to receive a concept for the implementation of the addressed and demonstrated chances of open educational resources. To put it simply, the demand put on OER is to contribute directly to the solution of existing problems. For example, the question is asked how OER - as quickly and urgently as possible - simplifies inclusion or how OER ensures that pupils do not perceive smartphones and tablets only as communication and play devices. Although it is important for us to work out such wishes or needs, in retrospect it would be clearer to communicate in the documentation what we can take up. Because an OERmobil cannot deliver a finished recipe for media education in a school in one day. As OERlabs at the TU Kaiserslautern, we can give suggestions, dismantle hurdles and take away the teachers' fears of contact. Individual schools themselves are responsible for a school-wide concept or the solution of supposedly worn out problem situations.

Activation of Schools


In the same time frame that the invitations to the second MSD were sent out, our network schools also received invitations for the planned mobile labs. The network schools were addressed in the form of a package designed by us (see OERlabs mobile) (Fig. 2 ) with cover letter, information material about the project and self-made material from the Open Labs at the TUK. The double address is intended to reach more interested people in the network schools. In some network schools this is achieved in a certain way by the fact that different contact persons are responsible for the MSD and the mobile labs. In addition, as suggested by Dodds and Benson (2015), we wanted to give all interested parties the opportunity to inform themselves in advance of the MSD and to incorporate any questions and suggestions into the discussions of the multi-stakeholder dialogue. Episode 17 therefore deals with the development process and the content of the package created and packed for schools. Furthermore, first experiences with the use in schools with which we go into the focus MSD teacher*internal education will be reflected in the following. An experience from the second round table is that the discussions were not only about OER, but about digital media in schools. The OER topic was a door opener to the current question of the importance of media education in schools.

Experiences with open processes
The MSD were openly designed in terms of the process structure. In other words, there was no predetermined goal that was being worked towards. In particular, the focus was on generating experience, getting to know each other and jointly "thinking through" the challenge of integrating cooperative practices into teacher training. The summary of the MSD in documentations was helpful, which was reported back in conversations. These were requested by individual participants. While we produced the documentations in the form of PDFs, the cooperation with the project "OER@RLP" led to the fact that the documentation could be produced in the form of a video: So there was a nice overview of the discussion about OER at the TUK at the first MSD and beyond:

EINBETTUNG VIDEO LINK

In summary, the experiences made in the dialogue formats with TU staff and schools contrast with the offers for students. In the dialogue formats, difficulties tend to arise in acceptance/acceptance - perhaps also because the idea of content and its role in the event was missing.