Figure 1
Shift to OEP.
Figure 2
Themes from the literature on OEP.
Table 1
Key Phenomenographic concepts used in this study.
| CONCEPT | DEFINITION | APPLICATION IN THIS STUDY |
|---|---|---|
| Categories of Description | Distinct, qualitatively different ways participants understand a phenomenon (Åkerlind et al., 2005). | Four categories describe how practitioners perceive OEP—from resource recontextualization to community engagement. |
| Outcome Space | Structured whole shows the relationships among categories of description and dimensions of variation. | Illustrated in Figure 5, presenting how perceptions of OEP vary in complexity and inclusivity. |
| Meaning Structure | Internal meaning of each category—what the experience is about. | Described for each category in Tables 3, 5, 7, and 9, including components like “open content,” “collaboration,” and “meta-practices of openness.” |
| Structure of Awareness | The relationship between what is focused on (theme), what is thematically relevant (thematic field), and what is marginal (margin). | Visualized for each category in Figures 6, 9, showing what participants foreground or background when conceptualizing OEP in different ways. |
| Dimensions of Variation | Aspects of experience that differ across categories, indicating variation in how a phenomenon is experienced. | “OEP Implementation” and “OEP Beneficiaries” are the key dimensions which differ across the categories (see Tables 4, 6, 8, and 10). |
Figure 3
The structure of phenomenography in the current study.
Table 2
Participants’ profiles.
| GENDER | PSEUDONYM | GROUP | ROLES | EXPERIENCES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Males | A2, A4, A7 | One | Administrators involved in planning and assessing OEP. | All hold PhDs and have over fifteen years of experience in open education, including national and international E-learning, OER, and MOOC projects. |
| 3 Males | A8, A9, A10 | Two | Administrators in admission, registration, and examination departments. | One has a PhD, two hold master’s degrees. They are involved in implementing open admission, registration, and assessment practices related to OEP. |
| 1 Female 2 Males | E1, E2, E10 | Three | Educators designing and developing educational programs. | All hold PhDs and have experience building an international learning program based on OEP. |
| 1 Female 3 Males | E5, E6, E7, E8 | Four | Educators developing open pedagogy, teaching, and learning. | All participants create and publish online OER platforms, gathering feedback from learners. They hold master’s degrees in disciplines relevant to educational pedagogies and technologies. |
Figure 4
Initial coding.
Figure 5
The outcome space of this study.
Table 3
Meaning structure of Category 1.
| CATEGORY 1: OEP IS PERCEIVED AS RECONTEXTUALIZING OPEN RESOURCES AND METHODS | |
|---|---|
| Meaning of the category | |
| The practices of localizing and delivering open content to match course objectives, fit learners’ needs, and suit diverse educational contexts, particularly within an open university setting. | |
| Recontextualizing meaning | Practices quoted from transcripts |
| Localizing | “customizing”, “reusing”, “integrating”, “accommodating”, “remixing”, “adapting”, “modifying”, and “creating”. |
| Open resources meaning | Resources involved |
| Open content | OER, MOOC, and Videos |
| Methods meaning | Methods involved |
| Teaching methods | - Incorporating open content into teaching - Matching course objectives |
| Learning methods | - shift from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered approach |
| Content creation methods | - Multimedia-enhanced - Professional production |
| Course delivery methods | - Digital and open |
Figure 6
Structure of awareness for Category 1.
Table 4
Dimensions of variation of Category 1.
| CATEGORY 1: OEP IS PERCEIVED AS RECONTEXTUALIZING OPEN RESOURCES AND METHODS | |
|---|---|
| Dimensions of variation | Aspects of Category 1 |
| OEP implementation: | Open content (OER, MOOC, Videos) |
| OEP beneficiaries: | Learners as course participants |
Table 5
Meaning structure of Category 2.
| CATEGORY 2: OEP IS PERCEIVED AS COLLABORATING AND ENGAGING LEARNERS THROUGH PRAGMATIC ACTIVITIES | |
|---|---|
| Meaning of the category | |
| The practices of collaborating and engaging learners through open pedagogies for university-wide participants. | |
| Collaborating and engaging learners, meaning | Practices quoted from transcripts |
| Educators and learners work together and contribute to the teaching and learning process collectively. | “communicating”, “interacting”, “supporting”, “training”, “connecting”, “sharing”, “participating”, “contributing”, “cooperating”, and “following up”. |
| Pragmatic activities meaning | Practices involved |
| Open pedagogies | OER co-creation, Learners’ contribution, Open teaching and learning, Open assessment, Open collaboration |
Figure 7
Structure of awareness for Category 2.
Table 6
Dimensions of variation of Category 2.
| CATEGORY 2: COLLABORATING AND ENGAGING LEARNERS THROUGH PRAGMATIC ACTIVITIES | |
|---|---|
| Dimensions of variation | Aspects of Category 2 |
| OEP implementation: | Open pedagogies |
| OEP beneficiaries: | Learners and educators as university-wide participants |
Table 7
Meaning structure of Category 3.
| CATEGORY 3: OEP IS PERCEIVED AS EMPOWERING OEP PRACTITIONERS THROUGH ENHANCING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF OPENNESS | |
|---|---|
| Meaning of the category | |
| The practices of empowering practitioners who engage in OEP by enhancing their understanding of the concept of openness in education | |
| Empowering OEP practitioners meaning | Practices quoted from transcripts |
| Empowering learners, educators, administrators, and researchers as OEP practitioners. | “Enabling”, “Enhancing”, “Encouraging”, “Motivating”, “Fostering”, “Promoting”, “Strengthening” |
| Enhancing their understanding of openness meaning | Practices involved |
| Enhancing awareness of OEP practitioners through Meta-practices of openness. | Open scholarship, Discussing openness-related topics. |
Figure 8
Structure of awareness of Category 3.
Table 8
Dimensions of variation of Category 3.
| CATEGORY 3: EMPOWERING OEP PRACTITIONERS THROUGH ENHANCING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF OPENNESS | |
|---|---|
| Dimensions of variation | Aspects of Category 3 |
| OEP implementation: | Meta-practices of openness |
| OEP beneficiaries: | Learners, educators, administrators, and researchers |
Table 9
Meaning structure of Category 4.
| CATEGORY 4: OEP IS PERCEIVED AS ENGAGING COMMUNITIES THROUGH CREATING KNOWLEDGE AND EXCHANGING EXPERIENCES | |
|---|---|
| Meaning of the category | |
| Practices of openly involving community engagement through the creation of knowledge and the exchange of experiences | |
| Engaging communities meaning | Practices quoted from transcripts |
| Collaboration in an open community beyond classroom and university | “Building”, “Communicating”, “Personalizing”, “Inviting”, “Practicing”, “Sharing”, “Opening”, “Immersing”, “Adopting” |
| Creating knowledge and exchanging experiences, meaning | Practices involved |
| The practices of generation and sharing of new knowledge collaboratively involving multiple stakeholders and sharing experiences among individuals or communities involved using open platforms | Building open communities of practice, Building open platforms, Adopting personalized learning, Sharing immersive learning experiences |
Figure 9
Structure of awareness of Category 4.
Table 10
Dimensions of variation of Category 4.
| CATEGORY 4: ENGAGING COMMUNITIES THROUGH CREATING KNOWLEDGE AND EXCHANGING EXPERIENCES | |
|---|---|
| Dimensions of variation | Aspects of Category 4 |
| OEP implementation: | Open platforms |
| OEP beneficiaries: | Open community |
Figure 10
Variation in the perceptions of OEP practitioners, beneficiaries, implementation, and meaning.