You are here:

Open Participatory Engagement Network (OPEN): An Instructional Design Meta-Framework for Creating Participatory Networked Learning Environments
PROCEEDINGS

, University of South Alabama, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Open education is experimenting with various types of learning environment designs. The Open Participatory Engagement Network (OPEN) Instructional Design (ID) Model is a meta-framework for creating participatory networked learning environments. It is specifically for creating Anchored Open Courses (AOCs), which are essentially traditional higher education courses designed such that they are open. These courses emphasize transparency and freedom through reduction of barriers, which enables and encourages access, sharing, learner agency, and connection. These courses utilize the concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) in order to provide for digital collaboration and practice. The OPEN Model is rooted in open systems theory, constructivist learning theory, and technology theories. It is also informed by other ID models.

Citation

Baker III, F.W. (2014). Open Participatory Engagement Network (OPEN): An Instructional Design Meta-Framework for Creating Participatory Networked Learning Environments. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 227-233). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Brown, J.S., Adler, R.P., & Seely Brown, J. (2008). Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0.
  2. Chitanana, L. (2012). A constructivist approach to design and delivery of an online professional development coarse: a case of the iEARN. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.eiji.net/dosyalar/iji_2012_1_2.pdf.
  3. Couros, A. (2011). EC & I 831: Social media and open education. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://eci831.wikispaces.com.
  4. Dwight, J.I.M., & Garrison, J.I.M. (2003). A Manifesto for Instructional Technology: Hyperpedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 699–728.
  5. Freeman, R. (2004). Planning and implementing open and distance learning systems: a handbook for decision makers. Vancouver, British Columbia: The Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://dspace.col.org/handle/123456789/164. Hill, B.V., & Tunnell, D. (1975). What’s “open” about open education? (D. Nyberg, Ed.)The philosophy of open education (pp. 14–23). London: The Gresham Press.
  6. Jarche, H. (2012). PKM as pre-curation. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.jarche.com/2012/07/pkmas-pre-curation.
  7. Klein, Z., & Eshel, Y. (1980). The open classroom in cross-cultural perspective: A research note. Sociology of Education, 53(April), 114–121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/.
  8. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Great Britain: Penguin Press. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/47089238/Remix. Meeder, B.R., & Meeder, R. (2005). Access denied: Internet filtering software in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 49(6), 56–58, 78. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/B03W28662K30J07L.pdf.
  9. Peters, M.A. (2012). “ Openness” and“ open education” in the global digital economy: an emerging paradigm of social production. The Encyclopaedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=openess_and_open_education. Peters, M.A., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publisher.
  10. Raymond, E.S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology& Policy, 12(3), 23–49.
  11. Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., & Tracey, M.W. (2011). The instructional deign knowledge base: theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
  12. Rodriguez, O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. Transition, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php? P=current&sp=full&article=516
  13. Rogers, P.L. (2000). Barriers to Adopting Emerging Technologies in Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455–472. Doi:10.2190/4UJE-B6VW-A30N-MCE5
  14. Surry, D.W., Grubb, A.G., Ensminger, D.C., & Ouimette, J. (2009). Implementation of web-based learning in colleges of education: Barriers and enablers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(3), 1–15.
  15. University of Mary Washington. (2011). DS 106. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://ds106.us
  16. Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture& Society, 31(1), 41–58.
  17. Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. In Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies ICALT06 (pp. 815–816). Washington, DC: IEEE Comput. Soc.
  18. Wiley, D. (2007). Introduction to open education. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.opencontent.org/wiki/index.php?title=Intro_Open_Ed_Syllabus. Wiley, D.A. (2006). Open source, openness, and higher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(1). Retrieved from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/IR/id/164

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References