An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices Introduction

Abstract

By investigating how educational practitioners participate in activities around open educational practices (OEP), this paper aims at contributing to an understanding of open practices and how these practitioners learn to use OEP. Our research is guided by the following hypothesis: Different social configurations support a variety of social learning activities. The social configuration of OEPs is investigated by an operationalization into the dimensions (1) practice, (2) domain, (3) collective identity, and (4) organization. The results show how practitioners of six different OEPs learn, while acting and collaborating through a combination of offline and online networks. The findings of our study lead to practical implications on how to support participation in OEP, and thereby stimulate learning in (online) networks of OEP.

Full text

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities
by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Bieke Schreurs1, Antoine Van den Beemt1, Fleur Prinsen1, Gabi Witthaus2, Gráinne Conole2, and
Maarten De Laat1
1Open Universiteit Nederland, 2University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
By investigating how educational practitioners participate in activities around open
educational practices (OEP), this paper aims at contributing to an understanding of
open practices and how these practitioners learn to use OEP. Our research is guided by
the following hypothesis: Different social configurations support a variety of social
learning activities. The social configuration of OEPs is investigated by an
operationalization into the dimensions (1) practice, (2) domain, (3) collective identity,
and (4) organization. The results show how practitioners of six different OEPs learn,
while acting and collaborating through a combination of offline and online networks.
The findings of our study lead to practical implications on how to support participation
in OEP, and thereby stimulate learning in (online) networks of OEP.
Keywords: Open educational practices; networked learning; communities of practice

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
2
Introduction
Researchers claim that the success and sustainability of open educational practices
(OEP) depend on prospering and fit OEP movements built around full and open
collaboration between educational institutions and amongst individual practitioners
(Lane, 2008). However, little insight exists into how these groups of practitioners come
to live, function, or learn together with colleagues (Fetter, Berlanga, & Sloep, 2011). To
improve our understanding of open practices and how practitioners involved in OEP
initiatives learn to use OEP, this article investigates how these practitioners participate
in a range of activities around OEP such as the creation, adaptation, and reuse of OEP
and accreditation of OEP-based learning.
Our work is empirically supported by the findings from six case studies into
communities based on OEP. These results contribute to an understanding of how
practitioners learn within these six different OEP while acting and collaborating mostly,
but not entirely, through online networks. In more detail, we investigate the social
configuration of these six OEP and investigate how this social configuration influences
the learning of practitioners. The findings of our study lead to practical implications on
how to support participation in OEP, and thereby stimulate learning in (online)
networks of OEP.
Theoretical Background
In this article, we perceive lifelong learning as participation-based and situated in
shared work practices. On the one hand, this perspective is rooted in the idea of
communities of practice (CoPs) (Lave & Wenger, 1991). On the other hand, we discuss
how recent organizational developments, such as new ways of working and the use of
social media in organizations, could change the organizational landscape, engendering
open networks in which practitioners work, learn, and innovate. In this article we focus
on the way learning is taking place through participation in such open practices. We are
specifically interested in understanding how social participation and collaboration is
taking place.
In practice we see many different forms of social collaboration unfold, especially since
people come and go based on their changing needs. This group dynamic results in
diversity in strength of relationships between participants and thus leads to diversity in
presence and engagement in group learning (Dron & Anderson, 2007). To understand
the nature of these open practices different typologies of social forms that a collection of
learners might participate in have been developed (Dron & Anderson, 2014). In what
follows we distinguish between communities, networks, and teams and use these
concepts to explore learning embedded in OEPs.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
3
Communities of Practice
In recent years, we have witnessed an uptake of OEPs in many countries (for a list of
more than 124 notable OEP initiatives, please see
http://poerup.referata.com/wiki/Country_reports). Researchers investigating
professionals who collaboratively participate in these initiatives often refer to the
concept of 'communities of practice' (CoPs): groups of people who share a craft and/or
profession (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Participants in a CoP are informally bound by what
they do together and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in
these activities (Wenger, 1998). However, it is argued that the informal binding of
individuals based on shared interests may be non-committal and may not contribute
directly to learning activities (Büchel & Raub, 2002). Commitment can be established
when the shared activities of a group are embedded in a historical and social context
that gives structure and meaning to these activities.
Based on the work of Wenger (1998), a large number of studies show how professionals
organize their lives together with colleagues, peers, and customers in CoPs to get their
jobs done. These studies also show how within communities the rules of the working
game are set: how to do the job and how to do it more efficiently. If these rules about
performing a practice are the core business of a CoP, one might expect however that
members of a CoP would be reluctant to change the way things are done in the group, or
the practice they work in. Much of the research and practice around CoPs has focused
on establishing the core of these communities and developing skills and competencies to
participate in them (Admiraal, Lockhorst, & Van der Pol, 2012). While the focus has
been on community building efforts, the important notions of Wenger (1998) on
boundary crossing and the ability of CoPs to constantly negotiate their practices have
been largely ignored.
Networks of Practice
Today, practitioners increasingly realize that opportunities for growth, development,
and innovation lie outside their own organization. These and recent other technological
developments have given rise to more openness in organizational practices. This
openness makes employees less constrained by boundaries that otherwise would
impede knowledge sharing. Current technologies and use of social media for example
enable professionals to connect with their peers with greater ease, at a larger scale and
on a continuing basis (De Laat, Schreurs, & Nijland, 2014). By emphasizing for instance
relationships and flows of information, networks of practice are distinguished from
CoPs (Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, 2011; Brown & Duguid, 2001). Others define
networks of practice as 'nets', resulting from individual connections between people,
with no explicit hierarchies or membership (Dron & Anderson, 2014).
Bottrup (2006) speaks of the potential of network-based learning as an important
complement to workplace learning and formal learning. She claims that networks could
be a special arena for learning because they give professionals the potential to take a

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
4
needed step away from their daily work practice to reflect and search for new
perspectives amongst peers. At the same time network members share goals, which
could make it easier to translate shared knowledge to their own working environment.
Open networks of practice are "collections of individuals who come together across
organizational, spatial and disciplinary boundaries to create and share a body of
knowledge" (Pugh & Prusak, 2013). These networks have shifting and distinct
boundaries (Dron & Anderson, 2014). The focus of such networks is usually on
developing, distributing, and applying knowledge and, to some extent, on building a
collective identity as is seen in communities. Organizations of all sizes are seizing this
model to learn more quickly and collaborate productively (Pugh & Prusak, 2013).
Teams
Alongside communities and networks, ‘teams’ can be found: ‘groups of people that work
together cohesively toward a common goal’ (Dechant, Marsick, & Kasl, 1993, p. 1),
where members ‘have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform’ (Salas,
Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). This description resembles Dron and
Anderson's (2014) definition of 'groups': externally regulated entities, with clear goals,
attributes, and rules. Team learning is defined by tasks rather than knowledge and often
guided by institutional schedules and limitations in authorized groups. In contrast, a
community’s life cycle is determined by tacit knowledge sharing in informal groups
based on self-organization and volunteered participation with boundaries beyond the
organization (Knapp, 2010). A community can be located somewhere between teams
and networks as a form of social organization (Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, 2011).
Learning in Social Configurations
Our perspective on learning follows Boud and Hager (2012). They emphasize learning
as a continuous process driven by needs that emerge in daily practice, by using terms
such as organic growth, evolution, and gradual unfolding. Learning is a process of
participation in practice, where professionals continuously develop their identity and
abilities in response to events in their professional environment. Boud and Hager thus
place learning in a social context, where professionals work and learn together, change
and innovate both their professional practice as well as who they are. This perspective
on learning involves being in touch with professional colleagues, building the networked
connections needed to participate in constructive professional dialogues about what it
means to become a professional, and being able to perform in the workplace (Lohman,
2006). Learning in a social context requires facilitation (Büchel & Raub, 2002) and a
safe supporting environment (Dron & Anderson, 2014). To implement OEPs,
developing, sharing, and applying knowledge are of undeniable importance (Lane,
2008). However, how do practitioners learn from each other while involved in OEPs?
Do OEPs encourage the emergence of more or less ‘pure’ communities, networks, or
teams? Can we distinguish different social configurations and, if so, how does the social
configuration influence the way practitioners learn from each other to implement OEPs?

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
5
We argue that these social configurations within OEPs can influence the learning
activities.
Although the complexity of social learning has been acknowleged and theoretically
explained little is done to help identify this in practice. Most of this work is done from a
single theoretical construct, be it community, networks, or teams. For example, Galley,
Conole, and Alevizou (2012) develop community indicators to observe and support
online communities. Admiraal, Lockhorst, and van der Pol (2012) developed a
community support framework to help develop teacher communities.
But in practice, social learning is a palette of colors that blends in different ways (Dron
& Anderson, 2014). The study of the complexity of social learning cannot be restricted to
a strict theoretical typology (Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, 2011). Therefore Vrieling, Van
den Beemt, and De Laat (in press) developed a framework that perceives the
characteristics of communities, networks of practice, and teams as integral aspects of
social learning.
Dimensions of Social Configuration
The framework of Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat (in press) operationalizes the
social configuration of OEPs into four dimensions: (1) practice, (2) domain, (3)
collective identity, and (4) organization. Each of the four dimensions is constructed
from several indicators, which reflect leading themes in literature on social learning.
These indicators are measured as the extent to which the group shows specific attitudes
and behaviour. The dimension practice refers to the extent to which the group
knowledge is integrated into day-to-day activities and the extent to which the group
shows continuous rather than temporary activities. Domain refers to the shared area
that inspires the participants to share, broaden, or deepen their knowledge and skills
within the group. This sharing can lead to value creation on the individual, community,
and society levels, provided the group has a clear purpose and goals (see also Büchel &
Raub, 2002). Collective identity measures the mutual engagement that binds the
members together in a social entity, shown for instance by strong ties and the
perception of group members as knowledge workers. This mutual engagement goes
together with feelings of openness and trust among the participants (Van den Beemt,
Ketelaar, Diepstraten, & De Laat, 2014). Organization refers to the extent to which the
group members have a shared interactional repertoire, a focus on local or global
activities, and equal or hierarchical power relations. Furthermore indicators in this
dimension refer to the extent to which the group is self-organized and has influence over
its own goals, tasks, and methods (Bottrup, 2006), rather than being directed by
management. This indicator should not be confused with management support, which is
considered an important organizing premise for successful group learning (Büchel &
Raub, 2002).
In order to complete the framework guiding our investigation, we included questions
referring to the indicators 'sustainability' and 'creative ability' based on the framework

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
6
of Galley, et al. (2012). Galley and colleagues (2012) see persistence of activity as a crude
indicator of successful social learning. In their view, a group is successful when the
activity continues until the problem is solved. Another important factor according to the
authors is creative ability. Creative ability refers to the competences needed to create
shared artefacts, shared knowledge, and understanding. This could be particularly
important in networks of practice, where people cross institutional borders and work
with relative strangers (Galley, et al., 2012). We believe that with this framework we are
able to describe a diversity of social configurations.
Main Hypothesis
We argue that the dimensions of domain, practice, collective identity, and organization
can add to an understanding of the functionality of social learning in the field of OEPs.
Starting from these dimensions, our main hypothesis is that different social
configurations support a variety of social learning activities. We provide preliminary
evidence for this hypothesis with reference to empirical data from the six case studies on
OEPs.
Methodology
Sampling
From an inventory of 124 OEP initiatives worldwide, compiled by the POERUP project
(http:// www.poerup.info/), six case studies were selected. The case studies are defined
as notable OEP initiatives. OEP was defined as a set of activities and support around the
creation, use, and repurposing of open educational resources (OERs) and MOOCs.
Selection criteria for the cases were: inclusion of primary, secondary, higher education,
and vocational training, both long-standing and new initiatives, easy access to
respondents through partner contacts, and both national and international initiatives.
Selected Cases
1. Digischool, a national initiative in the Netherlands, started by two teachers in 1995
and resulted in a collection of virtual schools where primary and secondary teachers can
share open learning materials and discuss the use of open learning materials in virtual
communities. Seventy teachers manage the virtual communities.
(http://www.digischool.nl/)
2. UvAMOOC: The first MOOC (massive open online course) in the Netherlands, titled
“Introduction to Communication Science” is an initiative of the University of
Amsterdam’s College of Communication and the Graduate School of Communication

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
7
Science. It has been run since 2013. The target group consists of college students and
lifelong learners all over the world. (http://mooc.uva.nl/portal)
3. The OERu (OER universitas) is an international initiative of the Open Educational
Resource Foundation, based in New Zealand, set up in 2011, with the aim of widening
participation in higher education by accrediting OER-based learning. The OERu is a
consortium of over 30 public post-secondary institutions. Alongside the consortium, the
OERu is enhanced by a system of volunteers (Mackintosh, McGreal, & Taylor, 2011).
(http://oeru.org/ and http://wikieducator.org/OERu/Home)
4. The Canadian initiative BCcampus, established in 2002 by the provincial
government of British Colombia, is a publicly funded organization that aims to bring
people from British Colombia’s post-secondary system together and make higher
education available to everyone by collaborative information technology services.
Within this study, we investigated the open education subgroup of the BCcampus
project. (http://bccampus.ca/)
5. FutureLearn is a private company fully owned by the UK Open University
(FutureLearn, 2013). It has collaborated with over 20 leading UK and a few non-UK
universities and cultural institutions to form the FutureLearn consortium. Since
October 2013, the consortium has offered a range of MOOCs at university level
6. Re:Source is an initiative of the Scottish Further Education Unit aimed at
developing OER for Scotland's colleges. The initial development work took place during
2012 and it is currently managed by the (Scotland) College Development Network.
(http://resource.blogs.scotcol.ac.uk/)
Data Collection Method
For each case study, three in-depth structured interviews were conducted, resulting in
18 interviews. Interviews were held with an academic contributor representing an
institutional partner, a coordinator or manager, and a person responsible for the
technical support or a volunteer. This selection was aimed at including both support
staff and academic staff and peripheral participants. The interview scheme was guided
by the four superordinate dimensions: (1) domain, (2) practice, (3) collective identity,
and (4) organization (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, & De Laat, in press). For the OEP
context, we adapted the framework by combining it with the community indicator
framework consisting of the dimensions participation, cohesion, identity, and creative
capability (Galley, Conole, & Alevizou, 2012). The community indicator framework
enabled us to include questions regarding facilities, support, and sustainability. The
resulting framework was used to investigate and understand the social configuration of
the networks the practitioners are engaged in.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
8
Table 1
Dimensions and their Indicators of Social Learning
1. Practice
1a. To what extent does the group exhibit integrated or non-integrated group activities
in daily work?
1b. To what extent does the group exhibit temporarily or permanent social activities?
2. Domain
2a. To what extent does the group focus on sharing or broadening/deepening knowledge
and skills?
2b. To what extent does the group experience value creation, individually or
collectively?
3. Collective identity:
3a. To what extent do participants exhibit a shared or unshared identity?
3b. To what extent does the group exhibit weak or strong ties?
3c. To what extent do the participants view one another as task executors or knowledge
workers?
4. Organization:
4a. To what extent does the group operate externally directed or self-organized?
4b. To what extent does the group exhibit ‘local’ or ‘global’ activities?
4c. To what extent does the group exhibit hierarchic of equal relationships?
4d. To what extent does the group exhibit shared or non-shared interactional norms?
5. Facilities, support and sustainability
5.a What are the main communication technologies that you use for the activities you
undertake as a community? (e.g., VLE, wiki, emails, Skype, etc.) Are these technologies
easily available to you? If not, please can you describe the key barriers or obstacles.
5.b How do you rate the usability of the systems that <your community name>
employs? (e.g., All systems usable, with internal evidence to back this up).
5.c How would you describe the levels of knowledge or skills demonstrated by the
community members in the discussions, debates, and the collaborative productions?
5.d Is there nearby, fast response technical support available for the activities you
undertake as a community?
5.e How do you perceive the sustainability of the community you are participating in (in
terms of durability, ongoing costs, etc).
Data Analysis
All interviews were conducted in-person, in some cases via Skype, audio recorded, and
lasted on average 45 minutes. The interviews were analysed using a coding scheme
developed to generate insights within the four superordinate dimensions. Strategies for
monitoring and improving intercoder agreement were used in the analytic process to
maintain rigor.
The data analysis consisted of a within-case analysis to reach data reduction, followed
by a cross-case analysis to search for patterns in the respondents' answers. In the first
phase, data of each respondent were analysed. After coding of the interviews, a thematic
coding around categories corresponding to the research question was performed.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
9
Finally, a comparative analysis of all respondents took place, which resulted in accounts
to draw conclusions and verify the data with the theoretical concepts related to our
research question.
The technique of 'constant comparative analysis' (Glaser & Strauss, 2009) was used for
both the vertical and the horizontal analysis in order to continuously compare
preliminary interpretations with accounts of the other respondents and the theoretical
framework.
Results
In what follows, we present how the four dimensions domain, practice, collective
identity, and organization constitute the social configurations. Results are illustrated
with data from the interviews. Subsequently we explore how the social configuration
influences social learning activities.
A) Shared Domain
In all OEPs, educational staff showed dedication to, and could familiarize themselves
with, a shared domain: to create and conduct OEPs. In some cases respondents felt they
were partly responsible for developing or contributing to this shared domain, whereas in
other cases it appeared they were rather ‘executing’ within a given shared domain. In
this respect, the practices of some case studies can be labelled instrumental, such as
FutureLearn, Digischool, and UvAMOOC, as they focus on producing OEP. Other case
studies, such as OERu, BCcampus, and Re:Source, were found to be more support-
driven in their effort to create awareness about OEPs and enable partner institutions to
produce and use OER and carry out OEPs.
All initiatives focus to some extent on creating a technological platform for sharing
materials. Most initiatives use openly available media in combination with other
platforms (e.g., Moodle). For example, within BCcampus the approach is to build on
current uses of technology in order to include more people: “We try to be flexible and
use what they feel comfortable with. We might set up a website or a wiki if we feel the
people in the project feel comfortable with [that].”
Evaluation of OEPs was done in some form in all examined cases; in one case, this was
done in an interactive fashion (quality tagging), and in another this was done through
implementation of a centralized procedure (course evaluation). While in the OERu
quality control has been part of their practices from the beginning, other initiatives
struggle to get quality control in place.
Within the shared domain found in all case studies, each case has its own specific
purpose. For example, OERu has the purpose of accreditation of OER-based learning,
while BCcampus consists of many different working groups with topics ranging from

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
10
open textbooks to educational technology support. The purpose of the UvAMOOC is to
experiment with MOOCs as a form of teaching, and building up expertise around the
use of instructional and technological design. The Re:Source case study focuses on
sharing resources amongst different institutions to avoid duplication of materials, which
involves a process of collaboration between several institutions.
All examined initiatives were set up to stimulate or exploit the use of technology within
education in general, and the experiences and expertise gained within the projects are
used to set political agendas. Therefore, they play an important role at the national
policy level by pushing the political agenda of their region or country. In order to do so
most but not all initiatives have close relations with national or regional policy advisors
or ministries of education.
B) Shared Practice
The dimension shared practice is represented by the extent to which the group exhibits
activities integrated in their daily work and the extent to which these activities are
continuous.
OEPs that can be characterized by a support-driven approach, with a focus on creating
and sharing knowledge, show a profound shared practice. For example the open
textbook initiative as part of BCcampus saw librarians from different institutions
working together on knowledge about open textbooks, copyright issues, and
sustainability of educational materials. Other initiatives with a focus on creating and
sharing materials, characterized as the instrumental approach, show a less profound
shared practice. The case of Digischool consists of specific topic related subgroups
within the larger network, yet the actual production of OEP happens on an individual or
institutional basis; the same holds for FutureLearn. All cases reported a large amount of
experience and expertise within the OEPs. The extent to which shared practice consists
of permanent social activities, even beyond the boundaries of institution or domain,
appears to be related to the age of the group. For example the ETUG community, part of
the BCcampus initiative, knows a history of over 20 years and shows a strong core group
of people meeting each other both inside and outside community gatherings.
OERu respondents, being geographically dispersed around the globe, reported that a
shared experience takes time to develop and, at this stage in the OERu’s history, the
concept of shared practice is more evident in the member institutions, where colleagues
have a longer shared history, than in the network as a whole. This aspect differentiates
the dimensions practice and domain; because in this case the domain is shared on
network level and shared practice is mostly located in the subgroups.
For most case studies shared practice happens both online and offline. Online
participation is reported to be facilitated by a wide range of available communication
and social media tools, such as wikis, forums, mailing lists, and a number of purpose
built platforms. These tools are used in diverse ways, from short periods of browsing to

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
11
engagement that is more reflective. OEPs with a focus on the production of open
educational resources or MOOCs rather than collaborative production of knowledge
reported using fewer tools and mainly wiki-type or online learning environment-type
applications. All technologies are reported to be easily available to participants,
provided they have Internet access. Regarding usability and technology support, the
interview respondents stated that most tools were easy to use. Whenever problems
arose, most groups relied on their institutions with helpdesk or in-house technicians.
C) Collective Identity
The dimension identity is composed of indicators related to the extent to which the
network shows strong ties, a shared experience and identity, and members are able to
articulate relationships with others that involve a distribution of functions or roles.
A strongshared identity, related to the domain and goal of the community, can be found
in the OERu initiative. The shared identity refers to the philanthropic values and
purpose of widening access to education using OEP. All OERu participants reported
feeling that they belonged to the network and had a sense of ownership.
Within BCcampus and Re:Source there is no evidence of a shared identity on the
network level. Yet, subgroups within the networks with an extensive history, sometimes
extending long before the beginnings of the initiative, were reported to have a more
profound shared identity. BCcampus, for example, counts on existing communities of
practice to drive the learning that is necessary for use: “When we started, long before
the start of BCcampus, everyone had a purpose coming from their own institutions; as
time went on we developed stronger connections to the ETUG-community.’’
Respondents all reported their networks as being open, trusting, and collaborative.
Participants saw each other as equals, although the case studies show that instrumental
networks such as UvaMOOC and Digischool consist of a core group of technical and
coordinating staff, showing a co-creating relationship, and a large group of (mostly)
non-sharing consumers. UvAMOOC participants shared the feeling that they were
collaborating in an interesting experiment in the first massive open online course. The
feeling of having a shared identity differs strongly per case study, along the lines of the
dimensions domain and practice: Case studies that are support driven showed a
stronger collective identity compared to the more instrumental cases.
D) Organization
All examined OEPs are complex organizations comprising diverse forms of networks,
(older) communities and smaller teams. All are (inter)national initiatives, with support
from regional or national politics, except for UvAMOOC, where all participating
members were located in one institution. Despite the national or regional origin of the
case studies, the institutional teams and communities often deal with local issues:
specific aspects of education or particular applications of technology. This is true even in

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
12
cases where global issues are at the heart of initiatives, such as OERu and BCcampus,
where improving access to education is central, since each of the partner institutions
also has its own local needs and audience to address.
Coordinators and staff members often state that they do not have enough time or
resources to give the OEPs the attention required. The longer-standing networks have a
more defined organization compared to newer networks. Networks focused on creating
and sharing new knowledge have a collaborative atmosphere, often extending beyond
the community itself.
ETUG (BCcampus) is a social bunch that get together for
instance to make music. This strengthens the
community. During informal meetings, experiences are
shared. There is a lot of work virtually, so the face to face
events add to the community feeling and shared history.
Because of what was described as a less active audience, instrumental cases such as
Digischool are often experienced as only partly collaborative.
There is not much co-creation [in Digischool]. You can
show that you have made it together with someone, but
in my experience, this does not happen much. ... When
it's made, it is made. Maybe people are open to more co-
creation, but it doesn't happen (yet).
Most of the cases featured a central actor that either set things in motion or kept the
energy in the community high (e.g., by active recruitment of contributors or active
inviting of contributions). Within OERu respondents doubted the sustainability of the
network without their central figure “[who] does a brilliant job of keeping people in the
loop, of engaging with new partners, of getting contacts together”, and worried that
“without a central unit, institutions could wander off in various directions”. On the other
hand, the OERu coordinator himself claimed, “There are natural leaders who emerge
[within the partner institutions] and that’s who we work with” (interviews with OERu
respondents cited in Witthaus, 2013a, b, and c).
Both contributions by media creators (technicians) and content creators (teachers or
other) were key for the activity level of the community. The importance of a central
actor specifically holds for initiatives focused on sharing and creating knowledge. In
terms of interactional repertoire, all OEPs showed a mixture of types of communication
and behaviour, while communities centered on resource use showed more
unidirectional interactions.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
13
Learning as a Result of the Social Configuration
Our results show mixed forms of social configurations within the OEP case studies,
providing further evidence that team, community, and network aspects are all part of
the social structure of a given group (Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, 2011; Doornbos & De
Laat, 2012; Schreurs, et al., 2014). Most OEPs involve complex organizations with a
diversity of networks, communities, and smaller teams. The results second our
hypothesis that different social configurations support a variety of social learning
activities (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, & De Laat, in press), such as co-creation, sharing
knowledge, or sustaining networks of relevant others. This result correlates with Dron
and Anderson's (2014) finding that few of the categories are absolute in any given group
of people.
The teams are situated within individual institutions and focus mostly on a shared
practice: Both learning about the production of OEPs and their creation happens mostly
within the teams. Despite the fact that team members ‘have been assigned specific roles
or functions to perform’ and are more hierarchically organized in our case studies, they
do have a shared identity (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992), which
resonates with items in the community indicator framework (Galley, et al., 2012).
Within institutional teams, we see that members are participating in open networks of
practice going beyond the borders of their institutions. We distinguished two types of
open networks of practice. Within the support-driven networks practitioners cross their
institutional boundaries to search for and share knowledge and expertise about the use
of OEPs. The support-driven OEPs report more symbolic learning outcomes (Van den
Beemt, Ketelaar, Diepstraten, & De Laat, 2014), such as mutual understanding, value in
work, and inspiration. For example, within OERu, the shared identity leads to powerful
social learning:
Oh this is the most rewarding experience of my entire
career. It’s a return to the core values of education and to
share knowledge freely. At the heart of every educator is
this passion to share knowledge; it’s [given me] the
ability to share this passion. (cited in Witthaus, 2013a)
The instrumental cases were often still looking for shared values, such as in the case of
Re:Source: “people are going to have to be exposed to the benefits of sharing, the idea
that there is more to be gained by sharing then there is to lose.”
When participants of the instrumental cases identified problems related to the intensity
with which members participated or noted that participation of certain members was
not sustained, this seemed to be at least partly related to a lack of shared identity, where
values of the OEP were not (yet) in line with the concerns of other constituting
members. Sometimes the innovative drive of the core group and intrinsic motivation
found in many other participants was not or could not be shared by all network
members.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
14
Learning that happened within the long-lasting communities seemed the most
profound. Members of a community are informally bound by what they do together and
by what they have learned through their mutual engagement in these activities (Wenger,
1998). Participants in our case studies reported a strong identity around a common
agenda or area for learning. In this way, shared learning and interest of the members,
together with a shared social and historical context, keep the community together
(Galley, et al., 2012).
There is a lot of work virtually [in BCcampus], so the face
to face events add to the community feeling and shared
history...[also] for the Open Textbook Initiative, we are
beginning to see this. So, we organize a book sprint, an
intense event that leads in 4 days to a textbook. This
should lead to shared ownership.
We see not only different social learning activities, but also different technologies used
within the different social configurations. Within the support-driven networks of open
practices, people use mostly one-to-one e-mails or group mailing lists to learn from each
other. Within the instrumental networks participants often use shared content
management systems to publish their OEPs, but use these individually. The community
type networks use a wide range of social media to stay up-to-date with each other and e-
mail is used to leverage the expertise of community members, in addition to regular
face-to-face meetings.
The findings of the different learning activities within the different social configurations
are well demonstrated within the OERu interviews with the coordinator and an
institutional member: The institutional member reported reading the discussions that
come in through the institutional members' mailing list. He reflects on what is being
said, contributes his own ideas via the mailing list, and implements the ideas within his
own institution by discussing the ideas with colleagues. Within institutional teams, most
learning still takes place offline, through shared practices within their own institution.
For example, the OERu institutional member who was interviewed said that the actual
deep learning happens within his own institution:
I mean sure there’s lots of reflections within the network,
but most of those reflections tend to be offline. There’s a
lot of offline reflection between partners sharing their
experiences and helping to inform the process.... [O]ne
of the biggest challenges we face in the OER movement
at the moment, is crossing the chasm ... from sharing to
learn, to learning to share. (cited in Witthaus, 2013b)

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
15
Conclusion
Our study is based on six different cases that share commitment to OEPs. In order to
present truly generalizable results, more data is needed. However, our findings resonate
with the experiences of practitioners and can thus provide other practitioners with
starting points for initiating and developing OEPs.
The analysis of the social configuration of the six OEPs investigated provided evidence
that within one initiative, different social configurations can be embedded (institutional
teams, open networks of practice, and a strong community) with different roles, goals,
and learning platforms.
Through the investigation of these social configurations, our analysis contributed to an
understanding of how social learning activities are taking place. Although members do
learn about the practicalities of using OEPs within institutional teams, the participation
in open networks of practice does give access to the needed external expertise.
Professionals increasingly see participation in open practices as a requirement for
professional learning. These open networks of practice are dispersed across
geographical and organizational boundaries, are informal and self-directed by nature,
and disentangled from hierarchy. Open networks of practice have the potential to offer
professionals a more dynamic and more useful ‘platform’ than CoPs for staying abreast
in a rapidly changing profession. However, it is the long-lasting sub-communities and a
strong coordinator that provide the drive to enable knowledge that could sustain and
empower the knowledge sharing within open networks of practice. Interestingly, there is
always some element of the practice geared to continual adaptation and change. Within
these sub-communities there are clear forms of collaborative knowledge building,
mediated by a variety of technological tools, which might be adapted to newly arising
needs. This implies that it is wise, when attempting to build sustainable OEPs, to build
on existing, long-standing communities, as this is likely to lend sustainability to the
initiative.
In the cases involving instrumental networks, it was mostly suggested that individual
motivation was central to active participation, at the same time showing an
(overarching) institutional commitment. A typical example would be where specific
project funding has been obtained for the development of resources. In these cases,
central coordinators may continue to play an important role in sustainability.
In addition, working towards (the maintenance of) a shared identity will help in the
creation of sustainable OEPs. Our investigation of this dimension seems to suggest that
cases reporting a shared identity had a common view of the value of learning and were
aiming to engage in and support knowledge co-creation; their aim was not in the first
place instrumental.
Experiencing being part of a community with a shared practice and identity might
necessitate the sporadic organization of face-to-face encounters. Co-production seems

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
16
easier to achieve by institutional teams and the constitution of open, trusting, and
collaborative relations is still a challenge in totally mediated environments.
Discussion
This study shows that social learning is complex and dynamic, and relies on supporting
structures whether they are based on learning in teams, open networks of practice, or
communities. Although the configuration includes different practices and interactional
repertoires, learning activities take place at all levels but in different forms and at
different levels of intensity (Schreurs, et al., 2014).
The applied framework helps us to further understand how to possibly connect social
learning at various levels of scale (Hoppe & Suthers, 2014). The empirical findings
reported in this study show evidence that within an OEP initiative there are multiple
forms of participation possible at various levels (and at the same time). For some people
it is enough to ‘dip in and out’ and see the OEP as a potential networking environment
and treat it as a source of knowledge and potential learning ties. Occasionally one might
take a keen interest in a particular topic or aspect and join a smaller group, that is, a
‘team’, to help solve a certain issue at hand. Or people might feel that this OEP
community provides a kind of home-base and treat it as a community that also provides
networking opportunities and the ability to start up temporary sub-groups or teams for
particular tasks. The study shows therefore that OEPs facilitate networking, where
openness allows the opportunity to meet and participate (a construct perhaps similar to
the notion of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), but one does
not necessarily need to become a core member. This networking ‘layer’ is likely to be
connected with one (or more sub-) communities dedicated to developing a sense of
belonging and maintaining long lasting productive relationships stewarding a shared
domain. At a lower level of granularity within the OEP we have seen that teams or
taskforces can emerge to solve an immediate problem. Participation within these teams
can be drawn from the community or network level. This structure seems to align with
the theoretical framework developed by Dron and Anderson (2014) where they identify
nets, sets, and groups. They also recognize the fact that these social forms overlap
and/or blend, but the extent to which they are connected at various levels is an issue for
further research. The notions of (dynamic) nested forms of social configuring was also
found in a study by Doornbos and De Laat (2012) where within an open network of
practice on teacher professional development, there was a similar dynamic and mixture
of social configurations. In their study they found that the network even took on
external requests based on their recognition and status as experts in their field and
applied a team-based structure to deliver as well as share their findings within their
open network of practice promoting therefore a form of collective intelligence (Dron &
Anderson, 2014). The extent to which the open networks of practice in the current study
show evidence and how this contributes to innovation and learning is a topic for further
research. Dron and Anderson (2014) argue for example that safety is an important

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
17
factor to stimulate social learning. Especially in sets anonymity could create a safe
atmosphere for participants. This could be the case for teachers who use online
platforms such as the Dutch initiative Wikiwijs intended at sharing educational
materials, as in a recent study teachers claim to be reluctant to use this platform because
they are afraid of being judged by colleagues. The importance of safety is also found in
other studies (cf. Van den Beemt, et al., 2014).
A final issue worth mentioning in the discussion is how these theoretical and practical
frameworks can help to promote and assess learning and the value that these open
practices produce. Now that professionals join these open practices outside the
organizations they work for (and meet and collaborate with self employed professionals)
it will be even more difficult to manage and recognize valuable knowledge or skills
within an organization. Participation in open practices challenges the more traditional
forms of career path development, intellectual property, and organizational human
resource management systems. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for
those organizations and individuals that are open to exploring the benefits of
collaboration and co-construction of knowledge beyond institutional boundaries.
Acknowledgements
This study is conducted within the frame of the POERUP project, funded by the lifelong
learning program of the European Commission (POERUP, 2013). The POERUP project
aims to enable the development of policies to stimulate the uptake of open educational
resources. Within the POERUP project, partners from the Open University of the
Netherlands, Sero Consulting and the University of Leicester, and the University of
Athabasca collaborated to gather all the data with help from the OEP initiatives under
investigation.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
18
References
Admiraal, W., Lockhorst, D., & van der Pol, J. (2012). An expert study of a descriptive
model of teacher communities. Learning Environments Research, 15(3), 345-
361.
Bottrup, P. (2006). Learning in a network: A “third way” between school learning and
workplace learning?. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 508-520.
Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). Re-thinking continuing professional development through
changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in
Continuing Education, 34(1), 17-30.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001) Knowledge and organization: A social-practice
perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198 – 213.
Büchel, B., & Raub, S. (2002). Building knowledge creating value networks. European
Management Journal, 20(6), 586-596.
De Laat, M. F., Schreurs, B., & Nijland, F. (2014) Communities of practice: Balancing
openness, networking and value creation. In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco & G. L.
Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource
development. London: Routledge.
Dechant, K., Marsick, V. J., & Kasl, E. (1993). Towards a model of team
learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 15(1), 1-14.
Doornbos, A., & de Laat, M. (2012). De waarde van communities of practice in het
groene onderwijs. [The value of communities of practice in green education]
(Report). Ede: GKC.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks, and groups in social software
for elearning. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN) 2007, Quebec City, Quebec,
Canada.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Agoraphobia and the modern learner. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://www-
jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/view/2014-03
Fetter, S., Berlanga, A. J., & Sloep, P. B. (2011). Peer-support and open educational
resources. Collaborative Learning, 2.
FutureLearn. (2013). Futurelearn launches. Retrieved from
http://futurelearn.com/feature/futurelearn-launches/

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
19
Galley, R., Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2012). Community indicators: A framework for
observing and supporting community activity on Cloudworks. Interactive
Learning Environments. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2012.680965
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Transaction Publishers.
Hoppe, H. U., & Suthers, D. D. (2014, March). Computational approaches to connecting
levels of analysis in networked learning communities. In Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (pp.
285-286). ACM.
Knapp, R. (2010). Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual
review. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 285-299.
Lane, A. (2008). Reflections on sustaining open educational resources: An institutional
case study. eLearning Papers. Retrieved August, 31, 2010 from
http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=12405&doclng=
6&vol=10
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers' engagement in informal learning
activities. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3), 141-156.
POERUP. (2013). Policies for OER uptake. Progress report. Retrieved from
http://poerup.referata.com/w/images/2011_4021_PR_POERUP_pub.pdf
Pugh, K., & Prusak, L. (2013). Designing effective knowledge networks. MIT Sloan
Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-
knowledge-networks/
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an
understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas
(Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp.3-29). NJ: Ablex.
Schreurs, B., Van den Beemt, A., Prinsen, F., De Laat, M., Witthaus, G., Conole, G.
(2014). Investigating the social configuration of a community to understand
how networked learning activities take place: The OERu case study. Paper
presented at the 2014 Networked Learning Conference, Edinburgh, UK.
Van den Beemt, A., Ketelaar, E., Diepstraten, I., & De Laat, M. (2014). Reciprocity in
knowledge networks. Paper presented at the 2014 Networked Learning
Conference, Edinburgh, UK.

An Investigation into Social Learning Activities by Practitioners in Open Educational Practices
Schreurs, Van den Beemt, Prinsen, Witthaus, Conole, and de Laat
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14
20
Vrieling, E., Van den Beemt, A., & De Laat, M. (in press). What's in a name: Dimensions
of social learning in teacher groups. Teachers and Teaching: theory and
practice.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation
in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. The Netherlands:
Ruud de Moor Centrum.
Witthaus, G. (2013a). The OERu is smart philanthropy: Interview with Wayne
Mackintosh. ILI Blog August 14th. Retrieved from
http://beyonddistance.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-oeru-is-smart-
philanthropy-interview-with-wayne-mackintosh/
Witthaus, G. (2013b). In the OERu, education is something that grows as it shares: An
interview with Haydn Blackey. ILI Blog August 15th. Retrieved from
http://beyonddistance.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/in-the-oeru-education-is-
something-that-grows-as-it-shares-an-interview-with-haydn-blackey/
Witthaus, G. (2013c). As I was contributing, I was learning: An interview with Bernard
Nkuyubwatsi. ILI Blog. Retrieved from
http://beyonddistance.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/as-i-was-contributing-i-
was-learning-an-interview-with-bernard-nkuyubwatsi/