• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Nate Angell

Wandering IQ. Raised by wolves. Friend to cheese. Building relationships of entangled mutualities.

  • Projects
    • Opening Knowledge Practices
    • Renewable Experiential & Applied Learning
    • Republications
    • Teaching History through Film
    • Mediapede
  • Pictures
  • Résumé
  • Contact Nate
You are here: Home / Education / OKP / OKP Learning Experience Bingo 2.0

OKP Learning Experience Bingo 2.0

1 Dec 2019 By Nate Angell Leave a Comment

Screenshot of a bingo card for open learning experience design side-by-side with a simplified version of it, accessible at: http://xolotl.org/okp-learning-experience-bingo-2-0/

This bingo card (image, Google Slides) is designed to offer a way for people to consider how learning experiences — like activities, assignments, modules, or courses — might be “opened” in various ways. For example, a learning experience might be opened by enabling wider access to more people, more agency for people involved, or more possibilities in its materials, tools, goals, outcomes, and/or design.

I offer it as a bingo card in hopes that you can use it to explore the openness of learning experiences — and perhaps generate ideas about how to open them further — rather than merely to judge how open they are like a rubric might. As I wrote before: “While the rubric was maybe attempting to answer a question like: ‘How open is this learning experience?’ I’m hoping this bingo card and its future augmentations can help people answer a fundamentally different question: ‘What dimensions of openness does this learning experience incorporate and generate?’”

The full bingo card includes boxes containing possible “ingredients” in a learning experience, and radiating from the center of each box, “dimensions” of openness along which an ingredient might be opened. There are open spaces for people to add other learning experience ingredients and/or dimensions of openness. Borders of the card are also left open in various places to suggest that the bingo card itself could be opened more.

A close-up of the “People” ingredient box from the bingo card, showing dimensions of openness radiating out from its center.

Please comment and contribute! Highlight any text on this page to add Hypothesis annotations, add comments or webmentions below, and/or contact me. I’m including all those who contribute in the acknowledgements (unless they prefer to remain unacknowledged).

You can access a Google Slides version of the full bingo card that can be downloaded in various other formats, including a PDF suitable for printing, and copied so you can make your own, revised versions.

This 2.0 version grew out of collaboration around two earlier works, the OKP Learning Experience Bingo Card 1.0 (OKPLEB 1.0) and the OKP Learning Experience Rubric 1.1 (OKPLER 1.1). Below you will find a list of its contributors so far and a dynamic collaborative bibliography of resources related to it.

Learning experience ingredients

Boxes on the bingo card represent the ingredients of learning experiences: materials, activities, skills, tools, people, roles, places, times, goals, feedback, evaluation, recognition, and design. The simple version of the bingo card is just these ingredient boxes, where you consider the openness of a learning experience in relation to each box with the answer to a simple question: Does this experience open this box of ingredients?

Materials
Materials used in the experience.
Activities
Activities people participate in during the experience.
Skills
Skills people use during the experience.
Tools
Tools people use during the experience.
People
People that design and/or participate in the experience.
Roles
Roles people play in the experience.
Places
Places where the experience happens.
Times
Times when the experience happens.
Goals
Goals the experience seeks to fulfill.
Feedback
Feedback the experience offers to participants.
Evaluation
Evaluations of participation in the experience.
Recognition
Recognitions of participation in the experience.
Design
The process of designing the experience.
Open
Add your own ingredient.
Open
Add your own ingredient.
Open
Add your own ingredient.
OKP Learning Experience Bingo Simplified 2.0

Dimensions of openness

Beyond the basic question of whether any particular box IS being “opened” in a learning experience, there’s the question of HOW it’s being opened.

The pie slices radiating out from each ingredient box represent these dimensions of openness. The dimensions radiate from the center to avoid the idea of hierarchy. An ingredient might be expanding along one dimension and not another (eg, a skill in a learning experience might be developed but not reflected upon), but the bingo card does not seek to measure whether one dimension of openness is better or more important than another. Add your own dimensions of openness starting with the pie slice left open here.

The dimensions in the boxes are abbreviated, so here’s a 2.0 draft of a key. I’ve also presented some examples, but I’m not entirely sure every dimension works in every ingredient box, so I welcome new ingredients, dimensions, and examples:

  • Surface: Are ingredients surfaced in the experience (which I see as a prerequisite for their opening)? For example:
    • Are the roles people play in the experience clearly articulated?
  • Share: Are ingredients shared with others? (Note: I’m not building in any judgement here about how ingredients are shared (eg, with open licenses) as I believe the nuances of sharing are complex, depend on context, and sharing in any way can be an opening). For example:
    • Are the materials or tools used and/or created in the experience made public?
    • Are the materials or tools used and/or created in the experience openly licensed?
  • Create: Do participants create/revise/remix ingredients? For example:
    • Do participants change the places where the experience happens?
    • Do participants create/remix/revise materials in the experience?
    • Are participants involved in creating the processes used to evaluate their work?
  • Develop: Do participants develop ingredients over time? For example:
    • Do participants modify/extend activities in the experience?
  • Reflect: Do participants reflect on ingredients during the experience? (Note: This is a meta-cognitive dimension. Special thanks to Rajiv Jhangiani for augmenting this dimension.) For example:
    • Does the experience enable participants to think about the roles they play in it?
    • Do participants reflect on the goals of the experience, how they engaged in them, and/or how the goals might be different/better for themselves or others?
  • Include: Do ingredients engage diverse people in the experience? (Special thanks to Maha Bali and Remi Kalir for helping me think through this dimension.) For example:
    • Are marginalized people engaged purposefully as a part of the experience?
    • Do materials provide space for perspectives they do not already represent?
    • Does the timing of the experience enable participation by people in other timezones?
  • Connect: Do ingredients connect outward, increasing their audience, impact, lifespan, intertextuality, etc? (Special thanks to Rajiv Jhangiani for pointing to the work of Seraphin et al to help augment this dimension.) For example:
    • Do the materials created by participants have value for a wider audience outside the context of the experience?
    • Might activities disseminated by the participants fruitfully engage other people for some time outside the context of the experience itself?
    • Do the goals of the experience connect to participants’ other activities/goals beyond the experience?
  • Open: An extra pie slice is left open in each box for you to add your own dimensions of openness.

Contributors: OKP Learning Experience Bingo 1.0

  • Angela Gunder
  • Apurva Ashok
  • Christina Hendricks
  • Christina Riehman-Murphy
  • David Wiley
  • Greg McVerry
  • Heather Angell
  • Ken Bauer
  • Maha Bali
  • Monica Brown
  • Nate Angell
  • Paul Bond
  • Rajiv Jhangiani
  • Remi Kalir
  • Robin DeRosa
  • Twyla Angell

Bibliography: Open Learning Experience Design

Resources listed below are items in the larger, public Open Knowledge Practices Zotero group bibliography that are tagged with “OKP”, “LER” and “LEB”.

Let me know if you have a resource to add to this bibliography or send me your email address if you would like to join the collaborative Zotero group to add and tag resources yourself.

1561563 okp,ler,leb items author asc http://xolotl.org/wp-content/plugins/zotpress/
Bali, M. (2017, April 21). Curation of Posts on Open Pedagogy #YearOfOpen. Reflecting Allowed. https://blog.mahabali.me/whyopen/curation-of-posts-on-open-pedagogy-yearofopen/
Bali, M. (2017, April 20). What is Open Pedagogy? #YearOfOpen hangout April 24. Reflecting Allowed. https://blog.mahabali.me/whyopen/what-is-open-pedagogy-yearofopen-hangout-april-24/
Baroud, F., Cox, G., Rao, A., Smith, P., & Touze, S. (n.d.). What is Open Education? Year of Open. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.yearofopen.org/what-is-open-education/
Cormier, D. (2019, March 24). Open Pedagogy – A three day seminar at Digital Pedagogy Lab. http://davecormier.com/edblog/2019/03/24/open-pedagogy-a-three-day-seminar-at-digital-pedagogy-lab/
Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3096
DeRosa, R. (2017, April 24). Open Pedagogy: Quick Reflection for #YearOfOpen. Actualham. http://robinderosa.net/uncategorized/1775/
DeRosa, R., & Jhangiani, R. (2018, March 16). Open Pedagogy Notebook. Open Pedagogy Notebook. http://openpedagogy.org/open-pedagogy/
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. A., & Trotter, H. (2018). A Social Justice Framework for Understanding Open Educational Resources and Practices in the Global South. Journal of Learning for Development - JL4D, 5(3). http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/312
Inamorato  dos  Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). Opening up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions (RC Science for Policy Report, p. 78) [Text]. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-education-institutions
Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (Dis)Course: A Distinctive Social Justice Aligned Definition of Open Education. Journal of Learning for Development - JL4D, 5(3). https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/290
McVerry, G. (2019, November 1). Draft Framework for Effective Teaching and Higher Ed. INTERTEXTrEVOLUTION. https://jgregorymcverry.com/frameworkforeffectivehighered
Schuwer, R., Bali, M., Green, A. G., Jhangiani, R., Ross, H. M., & Ritter, D. (n.d.). What is Open Pedagogy? Year of Open. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.yearofopen.org/april-open-perspective-what-is-open-pedagogy/
Wiley, D. (2013, October 21). What is Open Pedagogy? Iterating toward Openness. https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2975
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2018). View of Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3601/4724
OLC Quality Scorecard - Improve the Quality of Online Learning & Teaching. (n.d.). OLC. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-blended-learning-programs/
OSCQR. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://oscqr.org/
QM Rubrics & Standards | Quality Matters. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards
Cape Town Open Education Declaration 10th Anniversary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/cpt10/
The Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration

Bibliography Contributors

  • David Wiley
  • Maha Bali
  • Nate Angell

Filed Under: OKP, REAL Tagged With: LEB, LER, OKP, REAL

About Nate Angell

Wandering IQ. Raised by wolves. Friend to cheese. Working to bend the arc of justice. Learn more about my professional and educational history on LinkedIn and on this blog, or if you really want to get to know me, follow me on Twitter.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Annotate this webpage

A red arrow, pointing up and to the right.
Open the Hypothesis sidebar at the upper right to read annotations, or to log in and highlight to create your own.
  • Flickr
  • GitHub
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
Creative Commons License
Unless otherwise noted, original works from this website are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License by Nathan Angell.
IndieWeb badge Webmentions badge