Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The ecology of the open practitioner: a conceptual framework for open research Cover

The ecology of the open practitioner: a conceptual framework for open research

By:   
Open Access
|Oct 2017

References

  1. Amundsen, C. & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of educational research, 82(1), 90126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312438409
  2. Antonenko, P. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational technology and research development, 63, 5371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4
  3. Bossu, C., Bull, D., & Brown, M. (2015). Enabling Open Education: A Feasibility Protocol for Australian Higher Education. In C. Bonk, M. Lee, T. Reeves & T. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and Open Education Around the World. Routledge
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  5. Conole, G. (2009). The role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 187-207). IGI Global.
  6. D’Antoni, S. (2008). Open educational resources: the way forward. Deliberations of an international community of interest. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/Antoni_OERTheWayForward_2008_eng_0.pdf
  7. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2008). The interview: from neutral stance to political involvement. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, 3rd ed. (pp. 115-160). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  8. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed, revised ed. London: Penguin.
  9. Gadamer, H. (1989). Truth and method, 2nd revised ed. London: Continuum.
  10. Garrison, R. & Vaughan, N. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.001
  11. Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford, Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). United Kingdom: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research. London: Continuum.
  13. Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Global reach and local practice: the promise of MOOCs. Language learning and technology, 18(3), 5-15. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/emerging.pdf
  14. Islim, O.; & Cagiltay, K. (2016). The impact of OER on instructional effectiveness: a case study. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science & technology education, 12(3), 559-567. https://doi.org/10.12973/iser.2016.2003a
  15. Islim, O.; Koybasi, N.; & Cagiltay, K. (2016). Use of Open Educational Resources: how, why, and why not? International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 28(2), 230-240. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE2245.pdf
  16. Kong, T., Mahoney, D., & Plummer, K. (2001). Queering the interview. In J. Gubrium, & J. Holstein (Eds.). Handbook of interview research (pp. 239-258). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  17. Kursun, E.; Cagiltay, K.; & Can, G. (2014). An investigation of faculty perspectives on barriers, incentives, and benefits of the OER movement in Turkey. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 15(6), 14-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1914
  18. Mtebe, J. & Raisomo, R. (2014). Challenges and instructors’ intention to adopt and use open educational resources in higher education. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 15(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1687
  19. Muganda, C.; Samzugi, A.; & Mallinson, B. (2016). Analytical insights on the position, challenges, and potential for promoting OER in ODeL institutions in Africa. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 17(4), 36-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2465
  20. OER Africa (2016). Who we are. Retrieved from: http://www.oerafrica.org/about-us/who-we-are
  21. Pena, K. (2015). Comparative analysis of public policies in open access models in Latin America. Brazil and Argentina cases. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.1947
  22. Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  23. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: innovation in education? In R. McGreal, W. Kinuthia, & S. Marshall (Eds.). Open educational resources: innovation, research and practice (pp. 5-16). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.
  24. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
  25. Toledo, A.; Botero, C.; & Guzman, L. (2014). Public expenditure in education in Latin America. Recommendations to serve the purposes of the Paris Open Educational Resources Declaration. Open Praxis, 6(2), 103-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.2.119
  26. Torres, N. (2013). Embracing openness: the challenges of OER in Latin American education. Open Praxis, 5(1), 81-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.33
  27. Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223236.
  28. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: design and methods, 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Language: English
Page range: 363 - 374
Submitted on: Jun 14, 2017
Accepted on: Oct 17, 2017
Published on: Oct 1, 2017
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2017 Adrian Stagg, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.