Incorporating Open Educational Practices in Graduate Education: A Collaborative Autoethnographic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we describe the early steps of our journey through a collaborative autoethnographic research project and share preliminary findings. As distance educators who work at an open, online university, we embrace a philosophy of openness, drawing on open educational practices to facilitate collaborative and flexible learning. As faculty members who support masters and doctoral students, we conceptualize our virtual learning environments as spaces where reciprocal learning takes place between and among learners and professors in a form of co-mentorship. We chose collaborative autoethnography because it is an approach that allows us to interrogate our practice using experiences, archival data, and artifacts as accessible and reliable sources of information. Collaborative autoethnography, which permits us to both individually and collectively critique our practice, requires us to consider our personal experiences in relation to our identities as distance educators within the cultural context of an open and online research university in Canada. The initial data analysis process has uncovered three emergent themes to date. These themes include values linking open educational practices with student engagement and facilitating effective open educational practice through learning design. This research project enables us to experience the power of collaborative autoethnography as a research approach and to further our understanding of the potential of open educational practices in graduate education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".