This track included 5 participants ranging from a community college setting (Southern Tier of NY) to a small liberal arts college (Albany, NY) and three larger research institutions (from Central to Western NY). The level of the combined experiences was diffuse, as were the motivations for getting involved in the track focused on OER and Open Pedagogy. Wanting to be as democratic as possible, the group agreed to a model of rotating module facilitators, where each participant would develop activities according to the bi-weekly focus/theme and lead a synchronous discussion over zoom. Each module lasted for two weeks where assignments were disseminated and completed between weeks 1 and 2 and synchronous conversations happened on the Friday that concluded the two-week period.

During the kickoff meeting in March, members of the OER/Open Pedagogy track were able to brainstorm all of the areas that might be of interest in further discussions. This helped to form the basis of focused module topics, especially where there was choice in Modules 3 and 4.

Prior to officially getting started with the first module, the track facilitator sent out two weekly “getting to know you” posts to Canvas.

• The first focused on getting to know one another on an individual level – personal interests, hobbies, family and friends, what is work like, professional accomplishments, etc. with the inclusion of pictures or other multimedia.
• The second week of “getting to know you” was geared toward gauging levels of familiarity with the topic of OER and Open Pedagogy and brainstorming a few logistical strategies that the CoP could follow (e.g., mode of communication between modules, timing of synchronous zoom meetings, and thoughts on the best approach toward module 1).

This template scale offered the opportunity to post pictures and examples of work that would represent where each member landed on the grid.

Discussion below will lay out the nuts and bolts of each module, but the experience has been further summarized in a formal presentation at the October 2023 SUNY OER Summit.

Link to YouTube video of Presentation at October 2023 OER Summit

Module 1: Foundations

Facilitated by [group member name]

In looking for frameworks that the track could potentially apply to open education (topic for the second module), the facilitator came across UNESCO’s OER Competency Framework. This seemed like a good place for the group to start and eventually end at a similar level of foundational knowledge, no matter what the beginning level. Track members could add content, material, and links to a customized google doc to showcase tools they had used for learning about OER/Open Pedagogy. In turn, these materials could be used by a track member not as familiar, thus offering a teaching moment to bring everyone up to speed. The breakdown of the UNESCO OER competencies ensured that the team was covering all of the necessary areas of OER to develop a solid grounding.

Track members were asked to:

1. Take a self-inventory of what they already know about OER as laid out in this google doc. They could keep these notes separate somewhere or use the Canvas discussion board to keep track.
2. With each of the ability and capability areas as laid out in UNESCO’s model, find resources (preferably OER to be able to build an informative and exemplary collection) and drop them in the appropriate spaces within the table. Some capabilities may have been more challenging to find a succinct resource for, but the suggestion of offering an example of the capability became an alternative strategy..
3. In finding resources, the hope was that the team would be increasing their knowledge, and that all members were looking into what their peers were contibuting as well.
4. Devise a working strategy for the anticipated 1-2 hours per week.
   1. Week 1 – take a self-inventory and begin to browse for sources to fill in knowledge gaps; place them in the table
   2. Week 2 – read through the collection of sources to strengthen familiarity with the various capabilities
   3. Week 3 – engage in a zoom call. Prior to that synchronous call, discuss some ideas for how to best spend that time. Address the areas where individuals had a-ha moments? Or where they thought a concept was already known but learned something new? Or materials that team members currently own/have created but could transfer into OER? etc.
5. It was important to make a special note that the framework does not incorporate ideas of open pedagogy. This chapter was offered as a way to tie the OER foundations work with the basics of open pedagogy. Evolving into the open: A framework for collaborative design of renewable assignments

Module 2: Framework

Facilitated by [group member name]

What do we mean by open pedagogy?

David Wiley defined it in terms of OER, then coined the term OER-enabled pedagogy when people pushed back against the idea that open pedagogy necessarily involves OER. Christina Hendricks brought together a range of thoughts on open pedagogy and open educational practices, distinct from OER. One might be ok that there is a range of definitions, although it can be problematic for advancing research. For this module, the facilitator asked the group to share their understandings of the term, and decide whether to develop a consensus definition or if living with some variability would be ok. The facilitator began a Canvas discussion thread for this. The group was invited to share their thoughts, respond to one other, and see what would develop. How do OER and open pedagogy relate to different theoretical frameworks? There are frameworks for teaching, learning and information. There are frameworks for diversity, equity and inclusion. Some example frameworks were shared as to what could connect to OER/Open Pedagogy, but the group was encouraged to also look outside of the existing list. Each group was asked to choose a different framework and determine how to apply OER and open pedagogy to it. Team members each claimed a framework from the list by adding their name to the first column. Additons to the list were incorporated if members wanted to work with something different. How do OER and open pedagogy relate to our institutional learning outcomes?It was also deemed important that individual member apply OER and open pedagogy to respective local contexts and connect them to institutional outcomes. Three institutions’ lists were provided as examples: SUNY Broome, U of R, Geneseo. Track participants where asked to provide similar documents from their institution. This exercise would be useful if the group members ever needed to explain the value and relevance of OER and open pedagogy to their campus colleagues. DeliverablesTo wrap up the group’s understanding of open pedagogy, they held an asynchronous discussion in Canvas. Members wrote reflections connecting OER and open pedagogy to frameworks and Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) and posted or linked them in the Canvas discussion board replies. Members responded to each other’s thoughts in this space as well.All thoughts and revelations through these exercises were shared at the culminating synchronous zoom meeting.

Module 3: Select Topic: Outreach and Advocacy

Facilitated by [group member name]

Week 1:

• Reflect on and discuss local scenarios including perceived challenges (e.g., awareness, resistance, misunderstanding) to OER/open pedagogy
• Search for and share successful approaches from other institutions
• Consider personal/professional or others’ ambitions toward OER across campus initiatives

Week 2:

• Draft and share a blueprint for something to use for publicity, awareness, advocacy – make this OER via CC licensing choices.
• Envision a final deliverable that could be shard with each campus represented within the group and the greater COPALI cohort

Module 4: Select Topic: Building a joint OER

Facilitated by [group member name]

In Module 4, the team built on what had been learned so far about OER and how it was collectively defined. They considered challenges in promoting their importance to faculty, staff and students at their respective institutions, and potential solutions in normalizing their use. The next step was to brainstorm what an effective joint OER might look like for the team! A possible vision centered around some sort of infographic outreach material (maybe a flyer or handout of some kind) that could be distributed to different departments at the represented universities, but that could be personalized for outreach with specific audiences (i.e. faculty seeking tenure, library staff, students, etc.) To get the group thinking about what that might look like, they were given a short activity!

Step 1: In preparation for the next meeting, each of member was asked to find 1-3 examples of a simple, effective promotional and/or educational outreach material for OER at other universities or research institutions. This could be a flyer or handout, a slideshow or presentation, a workshop template, or any type of outreach material that you identify as useful. Each person posted a link to the material along with a response to the Canvas discussion board.

Step 2: After reviewing the material(s) discovered, they answered these reflection questions:

1. What about this OER promotional/outreach material is effective?
2. How is “OER” defined in this outreach material, and who is the audience?
3. What changes or personalization of this example could be made to effectively launch OER outreach at one’s individual institution?

Module 5: Collaboration

Facilitated by [group member name]

The theme for Module 5 is Collaboration. Previously, the group had talked about collaborating with other campus entities, but every step of the process involves some form of collaboration, especially as the librarian’s role tends to be one of guidance. For the two-week period:

Step 1: Looking at this OER Process below (adapted from College Libraries Ontario), brainstorm existing or potential collaborators (faculty, students, admin, other campus units, external groups, etc.) for each step and in what ways each member currently (or would potentially) collaborates:

Step 2: Choose one of the collaborators listed, preferably one who is not already partnering, and develop a short “elevator pitch.” This could be in the form of an email or bullet points for conversation, on why they should be involved in OER. Consider: Will they already have knowledge of OER? What would they bring to the table? How would they benefit?

Module 6: Assessment

Facilitated by [group member name]

1. Please identify and read through at least one article, chapter, source, etc. that focuses on the assessment of OER or open pedagogical practices. Feel free to dig into a subtopic that is of interest (e.g., impact on learning, student retention, career readiness, percentage of students choosing zero cost courses and the resulting graduate rate, campus culture as related to Open Educational efforts).
2. Within this google docs chart, add in the information that might be important to discuss.
3. A possible question to consider before gathering: Given the variety of assessment strategies seen in the collective readings, can each group member forecast a small assessment strategy to be tested on campus? What methods would be used?