Being Critical in and of Open Educational Practice [1459] Members : #OER17

Group Admins

Public Group Active 7 years, 8 months ago

Wed, Apr 5 2017, 11:20am – 12:40pm

Authors: Frances Bell

Room: Seminar 6

Theme: Participation & Social Equality

Type: Presentations

Description

“… closer attention to the sociomaterial prompts both students and educators to examine more critically the heterogeneous relationships in which they participate through social media, and the political capacities that are exercised on them.” (Fenwick 2014).

This presentation explores critical literacy within the open educational practice of teachers and students as a disposition, a will rather than a skill. Barnett(2004) includes criticality along with other dispositions needed for learning in uncertain conditions – carefulness, thoughtfulness, humility, receptiveness, resilience, courage and stillness.

Support for literacy practice in digital and open contexts, often called digital literacies, is driven by the affordances of digital contexts. As digital tools are developed and networked together via services, new concepts are needed. Digital literacies have been defined as “the capabilities which fit someone for living, learning and working in a digital society, and are addressed in education. This definition includes contexts for being that are beyond formal education and, theoretically at least, can include the politics of social media and the heterogenous relationships enacted there to which Fenwick (2014) draws attention.

There is a need for mutuality in Open Educational Practice (OEP) – across pedagogical fields, between teachers and learners, and between formal and informal learning (Cronin 2016). Hsieh(2012) argues that it is important to acquire social networking skills in order to enhance social capital and address inequalities but we shouldn’t disregard the primary purpose of social networking sites, to profit from the sale of advertising services. If we focus on the acquisition of digital skills at the expense of criticality, we can be blinded to critique of digital platforms and networks themselves, missing those political capacities exercised through them (Fenwick 2014). Wohlwend & Lewis (2011) recommend critical engagement with the participatory culture enabled by social and other digital media but this is challenging. In OEP, the technical contexts are dynamic and with a will, citizens can learn to perceive the mutuality of political capacities between those contexts and themselves.

References

Barnett, R., 2004. Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), pp.247–260. Available at: https://ieprojekt.sites.ku.dk/files/2014/07/Learning_for_an_unknown_future_-_Barnett_2004.pdf

Cronin, C., 2016. Open , networked and connected learning : Bridging the formal / informal learning divide in higher education. , pp.76–84. Available at: http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/S3_Paper2.pdf

Fenwick, T., 2014. Social media, professionalism and higher education: a sociomaterial consideration. Studies in Higher Education, 5079(March 2015), pp.1–14. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84904850004&partnerID=tZOtx3y1n .

Hsieh, Y.P., 2012. Online Social Networking Skills: The Social Affordances Approach to Digital Inequality. First Monday, 17(4), pp.1–24. Available at: http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3893/3192 .

Wohlwend, K. and Lewis, C. (2011) ‘Critical literacy, critical engagement, digital technology: Convergence and embodiment in glocal spheres’, 3rd ed. In Lapp, D. and Fisher, D. (eds.), The handbook on teaching English and Language Arts, Taylor & Francis.

Go Back