I have learned from the interview [1] that “Open” can mean so differently: freedom, inspirations, connectivity, opportunity, accessible for learners, knowledge for shared, bridge the gap, development, learning together, transdisciplinary, free of charge, learner center, adjustable, with thoughts, with doubts, disagreement, flexible mind, creativity, fair, reuse. For me, open means collaborative but considering both complexity and contextual as defined in [2].  

Collaboration maximize the reusability of resources. In my own field, one training material have been co-created inside Europe and have been available on-line for many years. For the course study, we recommended it to the students as the learning materials . The material is quite comprehensive. Indeed, the practices and technologies have been developing all the time but the basic laws have not been changed. Therefore, the materials of corresponding knowledge can be co-created and reused to reach their sustainable potentials. The students actually benefit from these materials during their learnings. The digital literacy can bring new opportunities to these material through legally remixing. Collaborations in both learning and research can be productive. I have taken a pedagogical training organized by my own university and the participants of the course came from different field all over Finland. Sharing the teaching experiences between teachers among different field open my mind. Besides knowing better the differences, I also found out quite many similarities between different fields. 

Openness is also complex and contextual. When deciding if the openness is included in teaching or not, it is also necessary to consider the purpose and the context of the teaching. To promote students’ learning, it is good to share the learning materials on-line in different format, videos, files, and podcast. However, the materials need be tailored according to the core contents and organized to provide the holistic views of the contents. During the Covid-19 pandemic, I have learned how to teach by using Zoom combined with Flinga. Through these digital tools, the interactions with students were activated and I can also assess the progress of the students learning. However, I have been wondering how to create the interaction more systematically especially give more freedoms for the students to write. During the group work of learning two topics, we have tried different tools: Padlet, Jamboard, Coggle, Popplet. I will introduce these tools for the teaching in my own courses. At the same time, I hope to find a good tool so that students can easily write equations for the interaction purpose. At this point, openness is also complex. It requires the technology. 

References

[1] Perspective of openness: https://blog.nus.edu.sg/openeducation/audio-podcast/ 

[2] Catherine Cronin, Open education, open questions. 

I have learned from the interview [1] that “Open” can mean so differently: freedom, inspirations, connectivity, opportunity, accessible for learners, knowledge for shared, bridge the gap, development, learning together, transdisciplinary, free of charge, learner center, adjustable, with thoughts, with doubts, disagreement, flexible mind, creativity, fair, reuse. For me, open means collaborative but considering both complexity and contextual as defined in [2].  

Collaboration maximize the reusability of resources. In my own field, one training material have been co-created inside Europe and have been available on-line for many years. For the course study, we recommended it to the students as the learning materials . The material is quite comprehensive. Indeed, the practices and technologies have been developing all the time but the basic laws have not been changed. Therefore, the materials of corresponding knowledge can be co-created and reused to reach their sustainable potentials. The students actually benefit from these materials during their learnings. The digital literacy can bring new opportunities to these material through legally remixing. Collaborations in both learning and research can be productive. I have taken a pedagogical training organized by my own university and the participants of the course came from different field all over Finland. Sharing the teaching experiences between teachers among different field open my mind. Besides knowing better the differences, I also found out quite many similarities between different fields. 

Openness is also complex and contextual. When deciding if the openness is included in teaching or not, it is also necessary to consider the purpose and the context of the teaching. To promote students’ learning, it is good to share the learning materials on-line in different format, videos, files, and podcast. However, the materials need be tailored according to the core contents and organized to provide the holistic views of the contents. During the Covid-19 pandemic, I have learned how to teach by using Zoom combined with Flinga. Through these digital tools, the interactions with students were activated and I can also assess the progress of the students learning. However, I have been wondering how to create the interaction more systematically especially give more freedoms for the students to write. During the group work of learning two topics, we have tried different tools: Padlet, Jamboard, Coggle, Popplet. I will introduce these tools for the teaching in my own courses. At the same time, I hope to find a good tool so that students can easily write equations for the interaction purpose. At this point, openness is also complex. It requires the technology. 

References

[1] Perspective of openness: https://blog.nus.edu.sg/openeducation/audio-podcast/ 

[2] Catherine Cronin, Open education, open questions.