Open Education Practices: A User Guide for Organisations/A word on ICT



In a recent editorial of n+1 magazine the authors posit Webism as a social movement, as significant as feminism, perhaps even socialism (The Internet as Social Movement, The Editors, 2010). Theirs is an historical and political overview of the way the Internet has changed the way information is created and presented, such as the manner in which the traditional printed book has been subverted. Their argument is that people mistakenly think of the Internet, and all the technology that goes with it, as simply tools, when they are more accurately an evolving social phenomenon. Regarding the book's displacement by the Internet, they say, "At this point the best thing the web and the book could do for one another would be to admit their essential difference. This would allow the web to develop as it wishes ...." (The Internet as Social Movement, The Editors, 2010).

These pages are intended to stimulate critical thought and discussion about Information and Communication Technology, and whether it is enabling a social movement. Perhaps we could start this discussion with a consideration of what literacy means today, and how the choices we make in tools, and policies we use to govern practice with those tools, affect those have on the development of that literacy.

= Digital literacy = How it affects teaching practices and networked learning futures - a proposal for action research.

The following is a critique prepared by Leigh Blackall and originally published in The Knowledge Tree in 2005. In this critique the author considers how digital literacy affects teaching practices in Australian education. For example, understandings of digital literacy, the impact of open source software and the place of content within the worldwide rapid publishing and networked learning revolution (Web 2.0). Participatory action research is suggested as an approach to developing awareness of new models for online learning, improving digital literacy skills and enabling networked learning practices in the education sector.

The tone and direction of this critique is determined by consideration of:


 * the tension between an understanding of literacy based on print traditions, and an emerging understanding of literacy based on Information, Communication Technology (ICT), or digital literacy,;
 * migration to free and open source software and courseware within the Australian education sector and the subsequent impact that may have on levels of digital literacy, including access and equity;
 * the influence that the 'content is king' period (1998–2004) has had on the collective thinking about online teaching and learning in Australia, and the impact it is having on networked learning possibilities;
 * the broader picture of the Internet and the World Wide Web, specifically concepts of Web 2.0 and the influence it may have on online teaching and learning practices;
 * a proposal to initiate action research projects to investigate digital literacy and networked learning futures in Australian education.

What is digital literacy?
It is commonly held that having an ability to read and write impacts considerably on a person's potential to communicate and learn. But how, and in what ways does a person's ability to read and write digitally, impact on that potential? Being able to access the Internet; find, manage and edit digital information; join in communications; and otherwise engage with an online information and communications network, are arguably aspects of what could be called 'digital literacy'.

At present Australia measures literacy (consistent with International practice) based on "... how well people use material printed in English. Progression along this continuum was characterised by increased ability to 'process' information (for example to locate, integrate, match and generate information) and to draw correct inferences based on the information being used" (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1997: para. 13).

Recent publications, looking at technological impacts on education, suggest that there are important forms of communicative literacies that go beyond text and print. For example:


 * Many students are entering their school or college with multiple literacies that go beyond text, and this trend will strengthen over the coming years. Educators will need to acknowledge and recognise these new literacies, and build upon and extend them (Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training (ACT DET), 2005: para. 12)


 * 21st century literacy is the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual and digital literacy overlap. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms. (The New Media Consortium, 2005: para. 2)

There is an emerging belief here, that a person's ability to process digital information is an important factor in the consideration of literacy. What then is the new scope for measuring literacy if we accept that information and communication technologies are affecting people's ability "... to locate, integrate, match and generate information" (ABS, 1997: para. 13).

A definition of digital information literacy has emerged from recent research into the capability of participants in tertiary education in New Zealand (See Hegarty, Penman, Kelly, Jeffrey, Coburn, & McDonald, 2010).

A Definition of Digital Information Literacy
Digital Information Literacy (DIL) is the ability to recognise the need for, to access, and to evaluate electronic information. The digitally literate can confidently use, manage, create, quote and share sources of digital information in an effective way. The way in which information is used, created and distributed demonstrates an understanding and acknowledgement of the cultural, ethical, economic, legal and social aspects of information. The digitally literate demonstrate openness, the ability to problem solve, to critically reflect, technical capability and a willingness to collaborate and keep up to date prompted by the changing contexts in which they use information.

Issues affecting digital literacy in Australasian education
Digital technologies and networked communications are still very much in development. Past, present and future changes in protocols, standards, operating systems and software platforms, not to mention market, infrastructure and policy directions, have, and will inevitably, change - radically impacting people's motivation to sustain effective digital literacy.

The following are four major issues affecting the development of digital literacy in Australian education.

The adoption of Free and Open Source (desktop application) software in Australasian education
While the use of proprietary desktop software is still very prevalent in Australian and New Zealand educational organisations, there has been a notable shift by government organisations around the world to acknowledge the financial savings and Information Communications Technology capacity building benefits that free and open source software (FOSS) offers. The United Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has been documenting this shift around the world, including the eagerly awaited report from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) which found that schools using FOSS spent between 20 and 60 percent less on ICTs than non-FOSS-using schools (BECTA, 2005)

Australia has produced its share of publications looking at the use of FOSS in the education sector with earlier work stating that "... the use of open source software across Australian schools and sectors tends to be idiosyncratic and piecemeal rather than coordinated" (Moyle, 2003: para. 30).

Since then there has been an increase in the use of FOSS in Australian and New Zealand education.

The Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training has adopted Linux and other FOSS, and there have been numerous incidents elsewhere in Australia of a migration to FOSS server applications, such as the course management system Moodle (as used by the Education Network Australia). In the case of the Northern Territory's adoption of Linux and other FOSS applications, the following figures were reported to the Open Source Industry Australia. The decision to use Linux and OSS saved the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training $1M in the first year, and allowed it to put 1000 more workstations into schools (OSIA, 2004).

Regarding FOSS uptake in Australia/NZ schools, Moyle (2004) in a later paper states:


 * Schools around Australia and New Zealand are experimenting with and deploying open source software in a range of different ways. Although there are no formal measures available, it seems from anecdotal evidence that this use is growing (Moyle, 2004: para. 14).

In New Zealand recently, Warrington Primary School adopted and self managed FOSS across its school and community computers in 2008. However, the NZ Ministry of Education rejected the schools requests to retain the financial savings for other school expenses (Hedquist, 2008).

Financial savings and long term IT capacity improvement - through the use of FOSS, open standards and more versatile desktop applications - has been shown to be considerable at an organisational and departmental level (BECTA, 2005). But what of the benefits to individual staff, students and subsequently the communities they serve? Case studies of educational organisations in other countries that have attempted to migrate from proprietary to FOSS desktops have strongly indicated that there are substantial challenges - mostly to do with staff and older students being accustomed to the proprietary desktop setup, supported by community tolerance for pirated software (van Reijswoud & Mulo, 2004).

If educational organisations developed procedures that are more supportive for using free software, then an individual's option to use free software would become a more viable consideration, as their choice to do so would not mean compromising interoperability with the school or college system. Opening such an opportunity, within a supportive educational environment, translates into an investment in access, equity and digital literacy oriented educational practice. This of course begins to address another issue - the pirating of software by staff and students within the organisation who are trying to remain compatible to the organisation's choices in software (van Reijswoud & Mulo, 2004). With appropriate levels of encouragement and support from the organisation, the long term benefits of free software at an organisation and departmental level could be foreseeable, through the gradual development of skills and digital literacy amongst its staff and students.

While the shift in thinking around the world towards the use of free software is notable, and the benefits to education are measurable, sadly, it has been difficult to access information on strategic approaches to FOSS in the various State and Federal Departments of Australian and New Zealand education. Very few examples were found of policy-enabled support for training and professional development within the schools and colleges on the use of free software. Given this apparent lack of Departmental support or direct financial incentive for schools and colleges to use free software, teacher training and professional development programs within educational organisations are likely to continue their ICT training strategies based on proprietary desktop software, and perpetuating the limitations of people's ability and willingness to use free software.

Broadening the scope of the organisation's software training and support capacity beyond the current narrow scope of proprietary software, would create opportunities to broaden the digital literacy of staff and students, including their awareness of social and educational issues affected by computing, such as access and equity, and develop opportunities to implement alternatives to commercial and/or pirated software.

The 'content is king' era in Australian education
As is indicated by the Australian Capital Territory's Department of Education and Training (ACT DET), 2005 recent report on emerging technologies, there is still a big focus at a Departmental level on content centric models of online teaching and learning. While the ACT DET report acknowledges some of the newer models for online learning briefly covered here and otherwise known as networked learning and open education, a great deal of this phenomenal report focuses on what might be termed 'eLearning 1' - the content centralised, closed, learning object model to online learning.

Departments and organisations have invested staggering amounts of money in this model. NSW's TAFE Connect project, Australian Flexible Learning Framework's Toolboxes, and the Le@rning Federation's Online Curriculum are examples of large scale investment in such a model. Much of the content produced has been designed to work within and (theoretically) across a number of Learning Management Systems (LMS), spawning further content related projects such as research into reusable learning objects, digital [copy]rights management, and meta data tagging. In the face of a proliferation of freely accessible content through the social media networks, it begs the question if these investments are of benefit to teachers and learners. In fact it was argued as early as 2001 by Andrew Odlyzko and David Wiley, that the LMS, content centric model is not beneficial to teachers and learners, or an effective strategy for online teaching and learning, and reiterated on by other authors (e.g., Blackall, 2005; Downes, 2005; Hotrum, 2005; Farmer, 2004; Parkins, 2004; Seimens, 2004).

Downes (2005) spoke about an inevitable shift away from closed-content/centralised/managed learning, to a more open/decentralised/individual model, based on trends in open network Internet usage. Downes used the emergence of the Web 2 phenomenon to illustrate this alternative, demonstrating the interoperability of open network services and arguing that it makes very little sense to remain with the content centric and firewall protected model, and that we need to instead embrace more open, distributed and networked learning models (Downes, 2005).

This shift in thinking from a content centralised model to a dispersed networked model is certain to generate tension not only between teachers and their departments, but between teachers and students. The differences and power shifts between the two models are deep, some (Downes, 2004; Seimens, 2004; Illich,1970) would even suggest that we are waiting for a paradigm shift in educational ideology.

The likely shift away from centralised models to decentralised networked models will necessitate a more independent level of digital literacy among teachers and learners. Educational organisations may have to consider more substantial initial investments in broad scoped literacy programs to lift the level of digital literacy, something that could perhaps be paid for by a reduction in content creation and an increase in the use of free software.

Web 2.0 and world wide networked learning
Never before has it been easier to create and publish digital media to the Internet. Not only is it easier, but it is conceivably free, so long as a person has access to a networked device. No longer does a person need to know complex html coding, ftp, or how to manage servers etc. Thanks to a myriad of free web based services, a person can create, publish and manage their own content without the need to employ experts or use complex software. This revolution in online communications has triggered an explosion of content creation, much of it licensed to Creative Commons (Linksvayer, 2005) – resulting in a vast range of digital content created by popular participation online, freely available for reuse under Creative Commons Licenses, and ever evolving. This change in the nature of information, communication and knowledge has been dubbed Web 2.0 (Boyd, 2005). It signifies a fundamental change in the nature of the Internet, content ownership, and information dissemination.

The visionary creators of the Cluetrain Manifesto recognised this change as early as 1999 when speaking of markets in the broadest possible sense:


 * Networked markets are beginning to self-organize faster than the companies that have traditionally served them. Thanks to the web, markets are becoming better informed, smarter, and more demanding of qualities missing from most business organizations ( Locke, Searls, Weinberger, Levine, 1999: para. 1).

Educational organisations (redefining themselves more and more, for better or for worse, as business organisations) are struggling to position themselves in the Web 2.0 era. Arguably their heavy investment in the centralised, proprietary based, content centric model, typified by the LMS, has made it extremely difficult for organisations to make a change, largely because networked learning does not require such an investment.

As Harold Jarche put it when he joined the online discussion between leading educational bloggers on the concept of ’Small Pieces Loosely Joined’ (distributed networked learning), and echoing the concerns of earlier writers (Downes: 2004; Odlyzko, 2001; Wiley, 2001).


 * This is still a difficult message to get past many educational institutions and training organisations. You don't have to spend a lot on the technology. You need to focus on getting the people and processes aligned so that learning happens. Save the money that you would spend on an LCMS and put it into the time to let people develop processes that work for their unique contexts. (Jarche, 2005: para. 4)

Many schools and teachers have not yet recognized—much less responded to—the new ways students communicate and access information over the Internet. Students report that there is a substantial disconnect between how they use the Internet for school and how they use the Internet during the school day and under teacher direction. For the most part, students’ educational use of the Internet occurs outside of the school day, outside of the school building, outside the direction of their teachers (Levin, Arafeh, Lenhart & Rainie, 2002: para. 3).

Anya Kamanetz, author of the book DIYU: Edupunks, Eduprenuers, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education, noted a recent survey of US universities that revealed that on average 82% of faculty never use social media in their work! Whereas 72% regularly use closed Learning Management Systems (Kamanetz, 2010).

Australian educational Departments and organisations, as do other sectors affected by the changes in media and communications, need to start accepting that there are considerable cultural changes taking place around them that are affecting the fundamental understandings with which they operate. Educational departments and organisations would do well to begin implementing exit strategies from previous content centric models of online learning (Morrison, 2005), and start investing in digital literacy programs and sustained participatory research. The goal should be to set in motion a continuous and sustained development cycle focused on enabling, supporting and encouraging the use of free software, social media, open education and research and networked learning practices.

A proposal for a participatory action research
Developing better digital literacy skills and awareness of new models for online learning in Australian education

The New Media Consortium (2005) outlined five strategic priorities for creating change to enable "21st Century literacies": (New Media Consortium, 2005, p. 13)
 * 1) Develop a strategic research agenda;
 * 2) Raise awareness & visibility of the field;
 * 3) Make tools for creating & experiencing new media broadly available;
 * 4) Empower teachers with 21st Century literacy Skills;
 * 5) Work as a community.

Participatory action research is likely the most productive research and action methodology with which educational departments and organisations may improve the digital literacy in their communities, while at the same time addressing the broader points outlined by the New Media Consortium. Investment in participatory action research projects would offer incentives to communities (including students, parents and citizens) and educational organisations (including teachers, managers and administrators) to work together towards identifying and continually maintaining their collective digital literacy for networked learning.

Wikipedia has a comprehensive, but more importantly, the most participatory source of information about action research - including a quote by Wadsworth (1998) explaining the methodology.


 * Participatory Action Research (PAR) is research which involves all relevant parties in actively examining together current action (which they experience as problematic) in order to change and improve it. They do this by critically reflecting on the historical, political, cultural, economic, geographic and other contexts which make sense of it. … Participatory action research is not just research which we hope will be followed by action! It is action which is researched, changed and re-researched, within the research process by participants. Nor is it simply an exotic variant of consultation. Instead, it aims to be active co-research, by and for those to be helped. Nor can it be used by one group of people to get another group of people to do what is thought best for them - whether that is to implement a central policy or an organisational or service change. Instead it tries to be a genuinely democratic or non-coercive process whereby those to be helped, determine the purposes and outcomes of their own inquiry. (Wikipedia, 2005: para. 2, citing Wadsworth, 1998:para. 33)

At first it may appear that participatory action research approaches differ little from typical professional development initiatives. But there are key aspects that are different.


 * The explicit aim to engage all stakeholders, especially students, in describing the problems.
 * Asking those stakeholders to research the problem and propose solutions.
 * Empowering those stakeholders to carry out their plans.
 * Repeating the cycle, reflecting on lessons learned and publishing the research.

Remodeling programs like professional development, networking and researching programs into broader scoped, longer termed, community engaged action research projects, may yield interesting results in the area of digital literacy for education. Suggested seed projects might involve a range of areas:
 * An Australian/New Zealand version of Levin et al.'s research (2002) Digital Disconnect - The widening gap between Internet savvy students and their schools.
 * A look at Doug Brent's (2005) notion of Teaching as performance in the electronic classroom.
 * Research into the idea of generation and digital literacy, modeled on Konrad Glogowski's (2005) Digital Pioneers.
 * A look at self directed learning in Australia and New Zealand and the capacity for institutional recognition.

Essentially the idea of participatory action in education is not new and has been practiced in the form of Parents & Citizens Associations and Boards of Trustees at most schools, student councils and business and industry relations, and in teacher development. This sort of community involvement would transfer easily into participatory action research. This is a proposal to renew and continue such forms of public participation, focused on the development of digital literacies for enabling open education and networked learning.

Notes

The Action Learning Action Research and Process Management Association (ALARPM Inc.) regularly publishes the Action Learning and Action Research (ALAR) journal. Back issues are available online at: http://www.alarpm.org.au

Australian writers on PAR include Nita Cherry, Karen Malone, Ernie Stringer, Jan Ritchie, Stephen Kemmmis, Richard McTaggart and Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit.

Development of capability
Action research was used to develop the capability of tertiary education staff and students in accessing and managing digital information. "They used a wide range of tools, most of which they had never tried before, and which few had confidence in using at the beginning of the project" to create "personal online learning environments" (Hegarty et al., 2010, p. 10). Action learning cycles were an important strategy for supporting the dispositions needed in the digital environment, particularly when using Web 2.0 approaches. A key finding was: " ... the value of having time and permission to ‘play’ within a supportive environment and dynamic learning community" (Hegarty et al., 2010, p. 10).

The dispositions required to obtain an adequate or minimum level of digital information literacy were found to include:
 * confidence and belief in own ability (self-efficacy);
 * a demonstration of openness;
 * the ability to problem solve and take risks;
 * technical capability;
 * a willingness to collaborate and share; and
 * the desire to keep ‘up to date’ driven by the changing contexts of information use and requirements (Hegarty et al., 2010, p. 20).

The outcome of the research is that: " ... there is no one size fits all model. Instead users of digital information are more likely to increase their level of skill and capability if supported to work within an environment which they have created for themselves. ... flexible programmes and strategies were used and they were successful in enabling learners to set their own goals based on personal and professional relevance" (Hegarty et al., 2010, p. 19).

Four main recommendations arose from the research.

1. Learning programmes intended to develop digital information literacy in tertiary education settings must: 2. Infrastructure at tertiary education institutions should be continually reviewed, in order to capitalise on the benefits of consistent access for staff and students to the latest web technologies, while recognising the ongoing need for security. 3. Educators and information services personnel should continue to engage in discussion and debate with the intention of reviewing and redeveloping a definition of DIL, based on the work done in this project, to underpin future programmes for developing and maintaining the digital information skills and capability of staff and students. (Hegarty, Penman, Kelly, Jeffrey, Coburn & McDonald, 2010.)
 * Have personal relevance for individuals and be integrated into everyday, work and study contexts;
 * Allow learners the opportunity to ‘play’ and engage in supported exploration, as well as exposing them to new tools and strategies for organising a digital PLE or presence in a networked environment (Web 2.0);
 * Recognise the importance of allocating time for regular face-to-face, (or possibly where appropriate, synchronous online) small group, learning opportunities that provide support for diverse self-directed goals and flexible and collaborative approaches to learning;
 * Facilitate participation in dynamic learning communities to encourage sharing and collaboration regarding digital information resources and knowledge;
 * Encourage meta-cognitive awareness of the learning process, through reflective practice and peer communication;
 * Provide support to allow learners to become comfortable with a digital identity and become familiar with ethical behaviour and etiquette in the digital networked environment; and
 * Consider the dimensions of digital information literacy, and foster personal capabilities, conducive to success in an ever changing digital environment, as outlined in the definition of DIL developed for the project. (The actual dispositions and skills required are described fully in the project taxonomies, Chapter Three & Appendix 2).

Summary
It is evident that a social revolution is occurring around the use of Information and Communication Technology. Trends in society are infiltrating the educational sector, and teachers and students are increasingly having to respond to the challenges of the digital environment. It is imperative that all players are supported to develop the necessary capability and dispositions needed for accessing and managing digital information on the Internet, (21st Century literacies) if they are to take part in an open networked and connected society. Participatory action research is mooted as an effective approach for enabling open education and networked learning.