For my first series of experiments applying open learning experience bingo to descriptions of actual learning experiences, I’ve started with experiences cataloged in the Open Pedagogy Notebook. Because student work is super valuable, I decided to start with the entry there from Jamie Marsh that was identified as a student perspective.
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.
OKP Learning Experience Bingo 1.0
After getting a lot of really helpful feedback on the Open Knowledge Practices Learning Experience Rubric 1.1 (OKPLER 1.1), I’ve tried to transform it into a resource that incorporates the fantastic contributions from other folks and still provides a tool we might use to think about the “openness” of learning experiences. The biggest change is from the format of a rubric to more of a mapping tool, that I’ve been thinking of as a sort of “bingo card”.
TL;DR: The new bingo card for open learning experiences is quite a bit different than the rubric, both simpler and, underneath, more complex. Read on to learn more.
OKP Learning Experience Rubric 1.1
As a part of the work I’ve been doing around opening knowledge practices generally, I’ve been thinking about how one might design open learning experiences that support multiple meanings of “open”: not just using open educational resources (OER), not just enabling open educational pedagogies (OEP), and not just offering wide access (like MOOCs), but all those meanings of open and more. To continue what is a long-standing conversation across the open community, I’ve tried to distill characteristics and levels of open into a rubric that one might use as a guide to designing and/or evaluating open learning experiences.
Annotation & EDU Trends
This post expands on a Twitter thread of mine that tried to lay out a concise argument that collaborative, digital, interoperable annotation can play a key role in the major strategies that higher education is using to meet the significant challenges it faces today.
Rant on PoMo
I’m posting a complete, slightly edited version of a 31-part Twitter thread I posted on 18 July 2019 so there’s a record of what I wrote in one place where people can read, comment on, and annotate it. I invite you to do all that below. I’ve edited it here slightly only in order to correct typos in the original, to expand abbreviations that were necessary just to make it fit in tweets, to add links for context, and to reduce somewhat the intensity of my ranty swearing (this is a family blog after all).
Everyone should take what follows recognizing its original genre: the late-night Twitter rant. It’s certainly not a great introduction to the complex ideas and bodies of work it references. It simplifies a lot of what I hope is my more nuanced thinking about these topics. Its rhetoric is a bit incendiary and could even feel insulting to you, the reader. I bet you are a better person than the imaginary audience of my original rant. Certainly the mini-argument I make at the end about why this flawed idea circulates in the USA is incomplete, and maybe even totally wrong. I do hope the rant can serve as an easy-to-digest argument against what I think is a common, but flawed idea about “postmodernism” and its role in shaping contemporary culture. And maybe we can add some depth to it through annotation and further conversation.