• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Project methodology

Page history last edited by Richard Pountney 12 years, 9 months ago

Frontpage      Cascade Framework


In this space, we will develop our understanding of project methodology - this will help us to crystallise the cascade framework as well as inform the evaluation of the project.


Notes to appear here - but see http://creativity4edupunks.pbworks.com/w/page/38623965/Creativity-for-Edupunks-(C4E) for discussion


[DRAFT 1 10th July 2011, Richard Pountney]


 [ this is on track - expand with examples from phase 2 - also signpost so that it is screen readable ]


[how curriculum gets made and the place of OER in the curriculum design process - the factors include fitness for purpose, what changes is it the content or the practice, the relationship between content and practice (define practice)  - the importance of staff development in the proces - that is iterative and cyclical - mention the need for prioritisation - areas of the curriculum that need special attention - things that are hard to learn and hard to teach - pedagogic content knowledge (Shulman)


The methodology of phase 2 of the CSAP OER2 project can be traced from the first project in which we asked partners to share and peer review a number of modules that they themselves taught. The group collected a set of modules that was the equivalent of 360 credits of a undergraduate level 4 (first year) Social Science degree (see http://www.c-sap.bham.ac.uk/oer/toolkit/mapping.html ). The act of sharing, in this context, involved an assumption (or perhaps a condition) that the modules chosen by the six partners were appropriate for sharing and that this involved an understanding:

  • that the modules had been taught for some time
  • that the partner was 'proud' of the module (it was part of a showcase)
  • that they felt that the modules would stand up to review and examination by others (i.e. that it confirmed to a broad understanding of good practice within the academy) 


Arising from the discussions and interactions between the partners and the project team a template was elicited that allowed for an initial mapping of the modules in order that they might be shared, transferred and modified by others. In this the question asked was 'what kind of schema can be derived from this mapping and how can this be realised in the process of transfer / transformation of practice?'.  [definition of practice as a combination of activities, materials, context, interactions etc]


This examination of the process influenced the group to consider the transfer/transform process to be mediated by a set of understandings, directions, and embedded practice that was essentially tacit [Eraut], or under-articulated (and possibly under-theorised) [expand on this and give examples]. The group decided to address this by attempting to design a model of 'making open' and the realisation of this was a pedagogical device (a set of relationships and orientations to practice and the sharing of practice) [draw on Bernstein and Bourdieu] part of which was formulated as a toolkit . The legitimation of this  [Maton] is a methodology that prizes the 'gardens within a garden' [Deleuze, drawing on Leibniz] that views practice and its representation [expand on OER as representation of practice or intended practice] does not stand alone, but rather it is a composite that is layered, sensuous and material [Law].


The issues that faced the group in atempting to elicit understandings from practice formed around a set of compromises and assumptions:

  • that making open carries with it a number of constraints to do with how practice is personalised, tacit and idiosyncratic at the various levels of institution, department, course, cohort and individual teacher levels
  • that making open requires a degree of reflexive adaptation to existing realisations of practice 
  • that existing practice is not articulated fully, it is in the form of habitus [Bourdieu] often enshrined (or polished) in texts such as handbooks and associated learning materials that carry (or relay) [Bernstein]  organisational information as well as learning material in the sense that it cannot be easlily separated from its origin or originator of the material
  • that the originators of the material are themselves 'borrowers' [see Angels' Melanesia ideas] and that much of the material is 'borrowed' [consider Platonic concepts of idea / copy / simulacrum applied to praxis as an approach that throws light on this] from others including his /her own education, other colleagues and from the ideal of being a university teacher / researcher (from media other sources including film [examples - include phase 2])
  • these borrowings are often hidden to the borrower (and become exposed and revealed in the sharing / making open act)  

[expand this and give examples especially phase 2 and the activity of Teesside / Blackburn and Welsh National College]. In response to these propositions about practice and its sharing we considered that the means by which we could extract / draw out and elicit this practice was analagous to extracting a winkle from its shell: that it not only requires a pin (a tool) but that it first needs to be 'cooked' - and that in this context cooking the winkle is a reflexive process [expand later and give examples - link to RP personal page and or give quotes]


An examination of this [cases] helps to identify the conditions for sharing / making open and these include:

  • material used in practice (subject to the factors above) is not owned by the individuals who use this material in teaching (and were subject to lengthy efforts to overcome copyright issues in the project)
  • that making the practice open and shared required a prior process of peer review in order that the practice could be reviewed, better understood and that (tacit) undertandings are made clear to others and to oneself
  • the potential for the mismatch between module designers intentions and the readers' interpretation of this. [that it might require the winkles to be freshly caught, freshly cooked and brought to table quickly (or better still eaten from the paper) [does this metaphor work?]
  • the granularity of the OER (in this case a module) is critical to the context and nature of the exchange. Modules carry with them contextual characteristics such as the purpose, shape, structure, format etc ... and these givens (?) affect the idea of re-purpose [Shriver 1997]


On the granularity issue we approached this in the understanding that modules will be used intact; that some materials will be re-used and re-mixed; and that these and pedagogical techniques and strategies may be 'borrowed' .


These principles shaped ideas around the Generative tool, and as such these ideas were revealed to us through our discussion, illuminated by the  literature and our own previous experiences producing key questions for the project:

  1. What is the nature of practice in module design and delivery?
  2. What are the factors in reviewing this practice and preparing to discseminate and share this practice?
  3. What does this tell us about the nature of current practice within the teaching of Social Science and about the sharing of this practice? 


Towards a Pedagogical framework for OERs 


It is useful to think about the open continuum, and the aspects of this:

closed - open

private - public

embedded - free

dependent - independent

prejeudiced - neutral

contextualised - decontextualised

messy / dirty - clean

crude - refined

(and the values these binaries might address)

The OER at the granularity of the module is at the divergent pole (learning designs [refs] and that this comprises a set of learning activities that we agreed to consider to categorise as learning units [metaphor 'stripping the car of parts' requires a knowledge of car mechanics] This is a n exploratory approach that asks what we know about the frameworks that people use to contextualise their practice [see notes from 18th January 2010, 'what kind of pedagogic description would enrich your materials in order for them to be effectively used by others?' and 'what issues occur to us in developing our materials.


In considering pedagogical frameworks for OERs in the Social Sciences we also ask what is distinctive about the discipline; in what ways might we consider difference to be the space around which we consider movement to take place, a pedagogic shift [expand, ref and give examples] and that we would take this further by investigating the 'readiness' for OERs (drawing on the cascade discussions in phase 2)



Refs (in progress)



Carlisle, P. (2004) Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: an Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568


Goodyear and Jones



Mayes and Defreitas

Shriver, K. (1997), Dynamics in Document Design 

Comments (1)

Phil Johnson said

at 4:32 pm on Jul 18, 2011


'The Pedagogy of Particpation' will be helpful to us and seems in line with the anarchogogy proposed by C4E. Our discussion with our particpants will be limited though by our lack of access to the 2002 resource - although the 2009 one is 'open': Why no pedagogy in England? (the hyperlink doesn't seem to be working).

You don't have permission to comment on this page.