Cath Wasiuk: Open Practice and Me
A summary of a talk given as part of OKHE Topic 1, 2018/9
Written by Chris M and Cath Wasiuk.
Cath Wasiuk (co-founder of #1minuteCPD, full bio) kindly spoke at the first session of OKHE 2018/9, sharing thoughts on open practice as a Learning Technologist, her experience of developing #1minuteCPD and some how ‘open’ has shaped her practice. We are very grateful to Cath for her insight. This post is a summary of Cath’s talk plus some reflections from OKHE tutor Chris M.
Open Practice as a Learning Technologist
Cath is E-Materials Quality Control and Student Support Officer for the i3hs (Integrated Interdisciplinary Innovative in Healthcare Science) Hub at The University of Manchester. Cath is new to the role, but despite the long job title is effectively working as a Learning Technologist (LT) as she did previously in the Central DL (Distance Learning) team.
Cath defines Learning Technologists (LTs) as: “people who are actively involved in supporting and enabling learning with the use of learning technology”
I like Cath’s definition of as it mentions supporting/enabling learning first, technology second — the ‘why’ before the ‘how’. 5–10 years ago this looked quite different in many institutions (obligatory #notallinstitutions).
In Cath’s previous role, she worked on a DL Masters programme for academic staff developing DL materials. This may be reminiscent of Inception: she was a ‘DL materials developer’ DL materials developer, but it’s worth considering for a moment. Due to the nature of the programme, Cath was forced not only to cover the topic of developing materials for DL delivery, but in fact to do it at the same time. However much we know about something (and I don’t question Cath’s knowledge for a moment), there’s nothing quite like doing it.
Aside: It may seem needless, but I’ll say it anyway: in my view, the best way to learn about and reflect on open practice is to do open practice. Whether or not this action is done deliberately with particular aims (see Chrissi Nerantzi’s discussion of pedagogic innovators for more on this), it should be practice. That is why we have set up OKHE as an online publication. As a participant reading the materials, you can experience learning from OER (open educational resources); by commenting on posts and through submitting your own posts whether assessed or not, you will experience openly sharing your reflections on your own practice and the topics (an open practice) and contributing to a OER (another open practice). Equally, I and — I think it’s fair to say — the other tutors on OKHE have learned and continue to learn so much about openness and OEP (open educational practices) through the privilege of developing and facilitating this unit, and from your contributions.
In the i3hs, Cath will be developing reusable, innovative, learner-centric and multi-discipline learning materials to support all healthcare professionals. There are plenty of aspects of open in this. I like to think about ‘open’ as ‘lowering barriers’: reusability (sometimes even usability) can be a barrier with educational resources; and some ways of thinking about disciplines can contribute to barriers to learning and reusability.
An Open Practitioner
Always open?
Cath told us that she has always classed herself as an open practitioner; there was no pivotal moment that led to this belief.
She describes open practice as a no-brainer in her line of work, but adds that this isn’t the case for everyone. Through taking OKHE, she reflected on the pressures faced by many of us working in HE, which may make open practice more difficult.
For me, this suggests another interpretation of ‘always open?’: we shouldn’t judge people on how open they are (hence the image). It is a matter of choice, and factors which enable/hinder openness are different for all.
Cath lists a few factors which can influence the ease of being open:
- Time is required to learn new things and develop new things
- Sharing openly requires understanding of copyright and licensing
- Cost can be an issue; making things open is not necessarily free
- A focus on other priorities (personal or institutional) can get in the way
- Fear that using open resources may impact on things like attendance
- Lack of support from staff or the institution may make it harder
She suggests a few ways some of these barriers might be reduced. For Cath, openness won’t solve all problems, but sometimes opportunities come up, such as when a need to share (whether openly or not) is important; she goes on to list ways to lower barriers for others: trying to influence institutional policy, promoting openness and raising awareness, sharing research, supporting and empowering staff. I think this is great — a big aim of openness is making something valuable available to all; if we believe that being an open practitioner is valuable then we should ask ourselves, and those we wish to support: “What can I do to better support aspiring open practitioners?”
I would add that the aim of this unit is not to become an open practitioner, but to reflect on open practice, how you see yourself, and what your reasons are. We welcome a diversity of views on this unit, we encourage taking a critical view, and so it’s OK to feel differently to Cath, for example:
- to consider yourself an open practitioner — or not;
- to have a static position — or change your position regularly; and
- to do open things all the time, some of the time, or never.
Reasons for open
Examining her reasons for being open, Cath told us she believes in sharing both resources and good practice, and openness is an obvious way to achieve this at scale. As an LT, she knows the value of technology to openness, transparency, and efficiency in HE. When designing materials, she asks:
What already exists? What can be reused, repurposed, remixed and with what permissions?
…and equally in our practice, we learn from (and help) others through open, online case studies. This example is typical of LTs — Cath describes them as an open, active community of practice, working in teams, building networks, and communicating through online communities. Look back at our write-up of Chrissi Nerantzi’s talk for some of these which Chrissi has founded.
Openness to solve a problem: #1minuteCPD
Cath points out that openness is not just something you might do because you believe in it, but can be useful in solving problems.
She tells us how #1minuteCPD was born — I’d recommend you read Cath’s account in full as it’s a great story, and it was her post for the first assessment in this unit, so you may find it useful for that reason too — but briefly:
“Poor turnout for [a] staff development session … was an issue I had encountered time and again in my professional practice … What if we could turn [staff development] on its head? What if we removed time and location barriers often faced by academic staff through creating 1-minute videos delivered daily online?”
— Cath Wasiuk, Exploring the benefits of open CPD for staff development in HE
The result was #1minuteCPD, an open blog of TEL (Technology Enhanced Learning) staff development, aimed at improving digital skills “one day at a time, one minute at a time”. In 2016 (a leap year, Cath reminds us!), they published 366 posts. The project continues and currently has over 500 posts from six authors. I think it’s great that this has continued despite Cath moving roles and institutions. This is another benefit of open practice: it allows us to produce resources which are less contingent on institutions or individuals.
The i3hs Hub
Cath tells us about her new role: unlike #1minuteCPD where openness helped to solve an existing problem, in the i3hs Hub, openness is built in from the start. The team are collecting user stories from healthcare professionals to understand what resources would benefit them — talking to those who may benefit from your work, can help to target open resources. The i3hs Hub will be using a mix of Canvas (a virtual learning environment and competitor to Blackboard), MOOCs, and Medium.
The wider HE context
Cath’s refers to the NMC (New Media Consortium) Horizon Report, Higher Education Edition, which identifies and describes HE trends, challenges, and developments in educational technology likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry. The 2018 report identifies as mid-term trend that ‘Proliferation of Open Educational Resources’ will drive educational technology adoption in HE over the next 3–5 years. She thinks that this seems to be bringing OERs to the forefront of academic discourse — while they are not new, she thinks they’re here to stay. If this interests you, read the report for a summary and further reading.
She also makes the link between OER and one of the University’s strategic goals (2020 Vision Goal 3): Social Responsibility. OER can benefit the wider community and society — practitioners around the world can use them; and the public can access them — as well as providing evidence of impact, and exposure for organisations. For these reasons, Cath feels that institutions like Manchester should “push to put open at the top of the agenda”. She included a reference in her slides to Policy Approaches to Open Education: Case Studies from 28 EU Member States (OpenEdu Policies), published by JRC in 2017. This is worthwhile reading on how institutions can support open.
From the practitioner to the institutional level, I enjoyed Cath’s discussion of what open practice means to her. We hope that you enjoyed the talk (or this write-up if you couldn’t make it) — please comment if you would like to add or ask anything.
