Covid-19 pressures, funding restructures, and loss of international students has increased scrutiny on university education. Increased online learning during lockdowns further magnify instructional problems with producing well qualified graduates. ‘Job readiness’ is also a familiar term in Australian education and is now framing the sector’s future more. In response to this pressure, I wanted to evidence how critical use of open educational practices (OEP) and collaborative pedagogies contributes to job readiness within blended delivery and interdisciplinary contexts. OEP are conceptualised as multiple entry points to learning and openness (Cronin & Maclaren 2018). OEP in this study are also characterised by ‘collaborative practice in which resources are shared by making them openly available, and pedagogical practices are employed which rely on social interaction, knowledge creation, peer-learning, and shared learning practices’ (Ehlers 2011:6).
A new consultation paper is proposing funding allocation to universities based on curriculum co-design with Industry; the National Priority Industry Linkage Fund (NPILF) consultation paper (NPILF 2020). Additionally, government and corporate reports have listed desirable work force skills (Table 1), demonstrating considerable overlap with trends such as ‘soft skills’ for workforce success. This paper summarises some findings of my Global OER Research Network (GO-GN) fellowship, focused on workforce competence (WFC) in OEP. This fellowship examined links between the use of critical pedagogy and OEP to develop WFC via blended delivery in large-scale learning. This fellowship uses these criteria to evaluate critical OEP for their ability to develop job readiness.
|AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY AND SKILLS COMMITTEE (2017)||AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND SMALL BUSINESS (2019).||21CC / DIGITAL LITERACIES (JISC 2014) INFORMATION LITERACIES (CAULFIELD2017)||MCINTYRE (N.D.); PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS|
|Collaborating||Social influence||Connectedness, digital citizenship, collaborative||People management, coordinating with others, service orientation|
|Learning & adapting||Emotional intelligence
Active learning, reasoning, resilience, tolerance, stress management
|Lifelong learning, self-driven, Positive thinking||Emotional Intelligence, cognitive flexibility|
|Analytical||Analytical thinking skills, complex problem solving||Problem solving||Complex problem solving|
|Non-automatable||Leadership, social influence,
|Critical/reflective thinking||Critical thinking|
|Social platform||Media, social networking|
|Digital||Tech design/programming||Information literacy|
Flexibility is held as a positive professional attribute. The capacity to shapeshift between career and organisational perimeters is based on calls for future-proofing workforces (Jacobs & Hawley 2009; Doxtdator 2017). This flexibility could also be thought of as resilience, adaptability, or responsiveness, and not just for the sake of pleasing employers. Flexible workforce theory also emphasises self-sufficiency as key to success, yet Tomlinson et al. (2018) acknowledge careers literature neglects the impacts of multiple factors affecting and defining individuals’ ‘success’. Adaptability is an important skill beyond having workplace specific skills, and if education is tailored too closely to particular workplaces, those skills are not readily transferable or valid for the flexible career path and ‘jobs that don’t exist yet’ (The Conversation 2014; Moore & Morton 2017; Doxtdator 2017). This complexity presents a dilemma for graduates and their ‘readiness’ for meeting unpredictable workforce criteria; should they cultivate a seamless transition and perfect skill fit, or adaptability, creativity, collaboration, problem solving as ‘job ready’ skills (NPILF 2020)? It could be argued that, in the current climate, universities should equip graduates to flexibly adjust their own choices and lifelong learning paths, rather than fit into a ready-made one and stay there for life.
This paper provides evidence that embedding critical use of OEP in blended delivery of an inter-disciplinary class can bridge academic and professional worlds via WFC. Situated, authentic partnerships between university, students and their career sectors could more openly develop transition among roles within post-Covid economic complexities (NPILF 2020), increasing desired flexibility and responsiveness. Given how we are reforming how we learn and what we learn (Peters et al. 2020), we could also be slowly baking how we work into that reform.
In this project, OEP attempts consensus and critical understanding via a communication focus across blended digital and cultural systems (Habermas 1987; Bottomore 2002). OEP is also authentic learning; a two-way process (Yunupingu 1989; Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall 2012) happening with, not to, learners. Two-way, consensual, engagement reduces ‘banking’ learning (Freire 1970), developing competence in application of knowledge to a context (Funk, Guthadjaka & Kong 2015; Funk & Mason 2015). Authentic, collaborative communication in knowledge work values a situated community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) and empowers participation (Freire 1970). Critical use of learning technology and OEP can therefore re-present (Freire 1970) workforce knowledge and authentic, collaborative, context-embedded practice (Cummins 1996, 2000; DeRosa & Robison 2015). In practice, this study’s OEP included open peer review of drafts, discipline-based situated knowledge and connections to industries (Lave & Wenger 1991), contextualised assessments with students’ experience, open textbook co-authorship, open access readings and support clips, and iterative learning co-design during lockdowns.
Changing workforces, wicked problems (Alexander et al. 2019), data poverty and digital illiteracy are opportunities to integrate competence across educational practice and disciplines (Adnan & Anwar 2020). However, relying on expensive digital tools exacerbates divides between world class and remotely situated and lower profile ‘bush’ colleges (Czerniewicz 2018). This limits opportunities for which blended delivery and distance education exist (Prinsloo 2016). This form of critical OEP can promote ‘institutional and educational reforms, questioning and challenging the epistemological foundations of who we are, what we teach and learn, and how we engage with the rest of the world,’ (Peters et al. 2020:9) be it online or offline.
Reforms include shifting power relationships via increasingly critical OEP pedagogies, and student-focused activities aligning with collaborative and two-way learning, engaging learners as active participants (Martin et al. 2019). Through critical digital pedagogy, students do not follow ‘where the instructor leads…’ (Morris 2020). Engaging students in digital and open practices with their discipline areas can expand what it means to ‘be critically literate’ and ‘empowered with technical and sociocultural competencies’ (Nascimbeni 2018). This OEP aims to be equitable practice, engaging in student co-creation in a ‘peer-based working relationship’ so that student ‘voices and lived experiences are embedded’ (Kukulska-Hulme et al. 2021:27–36). This study’s OEP is process- and critical pedagogy-based, beyond technology-driven content access (Geser 2007; Stagg et al. 2018). The shifts required are increased student participation and empowerment (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams &Trotter 2017), reliant on non-automatable human agency, adaptability, collaboration, creativity, and problem solving.
The literature’s focus on situated knowledge (Lave and Wenger 1991; Patton 1994, 2010; Outhwaite 2009) helped us use student and stakeholder input to constantly review and create more contextualised learning each semester (Habermas 1987; Kemmis & McTaggart 2005; Kincheloe & McLaren 2002; Funk, Worthington & Price-Winter 2016). This study blends developmental evaluation (Patton 1994, 2010) and content analysis (Neuendorf 2017) to understand and deepen links between OEP and workforce competence. Developmental evaluation is circular and iterative, rather than linear. Key word criteria for workforce skills emphasised in the literature and outlined in Table 1 helped identify content in the unit, students’ feedback, and work samples as part of the developmental evaluation (CDU Human Research Ethics number H20097).
Each semester, I evaluated unit materials and student evaluation comments for refence to these key skills. Main themes identified in a first reading of data were:
At the time of writing, I had collected a student evaluation response rate of 20% (N = 135 out of 611) over two semesters (halfway through the project). I also selected student work samples if they referred to this set of skills and concepts. At that point in the study, I collected consent to use a total of 39 samples. I coded students’ anonymised evaluation comments and written text for skills and concepts identified as helpful. Each semester’s data further developed the subsequent semester’s learning design thereby performing a ‘developmental evaluation’ (Patton 1994, 2010) of the unit.
Developing workforce competence is determined by several factors (Tomlinson et al. 2018). Within the remit of blended delivery in an interdisciplinary class, students’ career preparation can compete with multiple actors like discipline culture, and styles of delivery expected. For this reason, it made sense to embed workforce skills from Table 1 within OEP and participatory use of learning technology. Using students’ academic and career paths for assessments material and in open peer review allowed them to re-present their knowledge in a situated community of practice, relevant to their academic, and professional pathways (Freire 1970; Lave & Wenger 1991). It is hoped that this provided a safe, equitable space for students to develop sociocultural competencies (Nascimbeni 2018) and see how concepts and WFC skills translate to various fields.
Cultivating two-way, collaborative, and consensual communication allows students to manage their learning in increasingly self-sufficient ways. Our teaching team and students developed a community that supports skills by the ways we use tools and concepts, not by the way we ‘deliver content.’ This took the form of students ‘occupying’ the discussion board and sharing drafts in peer review. The community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) developed a safety net where students supported each other’s work and skill development in the open, for the entire cohort to see.
The last point above reveals that the student felt participation was open to them despite being an observer within blended delivery. Creating critical open pedagogies and spaces for students to engage from where they are meets equitable practice standards, increases participation and empowerment (Arinto, Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter 2017), and opens ‘multiple ways in’ to learning (Cronin & Maclaren 2018). This further validates that it is the critical and open way we cultivate critical OEP which empowers students for the social contexts in which they work (Wallace 2011; Peters et al. 2020).
In this study, OEP fostered student responsiveness, resilience, and flexibility concerning complex workforce skills. OEP helped students develop collaborative, creative, critical, and supportive learning communities and practice. Whether purely online or blended delivery, WFC with the use of increasingly critical OEP supports learning relationships across and between fields of study, peers, and university learning cultures. More in depth analysis of the entire data set will further explore correlation between links in themes and criteria.
I acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the lands on which this research was conducted; the Larrakia. I also extend my respects to Yolŋu Senior Lecturers who shared the theoretical framework for this work. I pay my respects to all elders, past, present, and emerging.
This research is part of the GO-GN Fellowship Round 2020, funded by The Open University and Hewlett Foundation.
The author has no competing interests to declare.
Adnan, M and Anwar, K. 2020. Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1). 2020. http://www.doi.org/10.33902/JPSP. 2020261309 Online Submission, 2(1): 45–51. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606496.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
Alexander, B, Ashford-Rowe, K, Barajas-Murphy, N, Dobbin, G, Knott, J, McCormack, M, Pomerantz, J, Seilhammer, R and Weber, N. 2019. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE. Available at https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonreport.pdf?#page=14&la=en&hash=5C6DC7ECEEF4803540246E6158E1807A55C703FB.
Arinto, PB, Hodgkinson-Williams, C and Trotter, H. 2017. OER and OEP in the Global South: Implications and recommendations for social inclusion. In: Hodgkinson-Williams, C and Arinto, PB (eds.), Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South. Cape Town & Ottawa: African Minds, International Development Research Centre & Research on Open Educational Resources for Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47622/9781928331483
Australian Government, Department of Jobs and Small Business. 2019. Australian jobs 2019. Available at https://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/australianjobs2019.pdf.
Australian Industry and Skills Committee. 2017. Future skills and training: A practical resource to help identify future skills and training (report). Available at https://www.aisc.net.au/sites/default/files/documents/Future%20Priority%20Skills%20Resource.pdf.
Bartlett, C, Marshall, M and Marshall, A. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4): 331–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8
Bottomore, TB. 2002. The Frankfurt School and its critics. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203407110
Caulfield, M. 2017. Web literacy for student fact checkers… and other people who care about facts. Pressbooks. Available at https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/.
Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
Cronin, C and MacLaren, I. 2018. Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in open educational practices. Open Praxis, 10(2): 127–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.825
Czerniewicz, L. 2018. Inequality as higher education goes online. In: Bonderup Dohn, N, Cranmer, S, Sime, JA, de Laat, M and Ryberg, T (eds.), Networked learning: Research in networked learning, 95–106. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_6
DeRosa, R and Robison, S. 9 November 2015. Pedagogy, technology, and the example of open educational resources. EDUCAUSE Review [online]. Available at https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/11/pedagogy-technology-and-the-example-of-open-educational-resources.
Doxtdator, B. 8 July 2017. A field guide to ‘jobs that don’t exist yet’. BD essays on the intersection of politics and pedagogy [online]. Available at https://longviewoneducation.org/field-guide-jobs-dont-exist-yet/.
Funk, J, Guthadjaka, K and Kong, G. 2015. Posting traditional ecological knowledge on open access biodiversity platforms: Implications for learning design. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 44(2): 150–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2015.25
Funk, J and Mason, J. 2015. Open educational practices and 21CC: Positioning their significance. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education, 30 November to 4 December 2015, Hangzhou, China. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Available at https://igce.cdu.edu.au/sites/igce.cdu.edu.au/files/docs/open_educational_icce2015_mason.pdf.
Funk, J, Worthington, S and Price-Winter, L. 2016. Using evaluation and participatory action research methods to develop an eLearning resource. Sage Research Methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305015595368
Geser, G. (ed.) 2007. Open Educational practices and resources: OLCOS roadmap, 2012. Open eLearning Content Observatory Services. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v4i1.295
Jacobs, RL and Hawley, JD. 2009. The emergence of ‘workforce development’: Definition, conceptual boundaries and implications. In: Maclean, R and Wilson, D (eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work, 2537–2552. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_167
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). 6 March 2014. Developing digital literacies. JISC [online]. Available at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies.
Kemmis, S and McTaggart, R. 2005. Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 559–603. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Available at https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/26655/.
Kincheloe, JL and Mclaren, P. 2002. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In: Zou, Y and Trueba, ET (eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education, 87–138. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kukulska-Hulme, A, Bossu, C, Coughlan, T, Ferguson, R, FitzGerald, E, Gaved, M, Herodotou, C, Rienties, B, Sargent, J, Scanlon, E, Tang, J, Wang, Q, Whitelock, D and Zhang, S. 2021. Innovating pedagogy 2021: Open University innovation report 9. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Lave, J and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Martin, F, Budhrani, K, Kumar, S and Ritzhaupt, A. 2019. Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1): 184–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329
McIntyre, A. (n.d). 10 skills you need for future employment. PWC Australia. Available at https://www.pwc.com.au/careers/blog/future-employment.html.
Moore, T and Morton, J. 2017. The myth of job readiness? Written communication, employability, and the ‘skills gap’ in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3): 591–609, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1067602
Morris, SM. 9 December 2020. Critical digital pedagogy after COVID-19. Sean Michael Morris [online]. Available at https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/critical-digital-pedagogy-after-covid-19/.
Nascimbeni, F. 2018. Rethinking digital literacy for teachers in open and participatory societies. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC), 9(3): 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDLDC.2018070101
National Priority Industry Linkage Fund (NPILF). 2020. Consultation paper. Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Available at https://www.dese.gov.au/job-ready/resources/npilf-consultation-paper.
Neuendorf, KA. 2017. The content analysis guidebook. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878
Patton, MQ. 1994. Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3): 311–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409401500312
Peters, MA, Rizvi, F, McCulloch, G, Gibbs, P, Gorur, R, Hong, M, Hwang, Y, Zipin, L, Brennan, M, Robertson, S, Quay, J, Malbon, J, Taglietti, D, Barnett, R, Chengbing, W, McLaren, P, Apple, R, Papastephanou, M, Burbules, N, Jackson, L, Jalote, P, Kalantzis, M, Cope, B, Fataar, A., Conroy, J, Misiaszek, G, Biesta, G, Jandrić, P, Choo, SS, Apple, M, Stone, L, Tierney, R, Tesar, M, Besley, T and Misiaszek, L. 2020. Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19: An EPAT collective project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Prinsloo, P. 2016. (Re) considering distance education: Exploring its relevance, sustainability and value contribution. Distance Education, 37(2): 139–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1188445
Stagg, A, Linh, N, Bossu, C, Partridge, H, Funk, J and Judith, K. 2018. Open educational practices in Australia: A first-phase national audit of higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3): 172–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3441
Tomlinson, J, Baird, M, Berg, P and Cooper, R. 2018. Flexible careers across the life course: Advancing theory, research and practice. Human Relations, 71(1): 4–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717733313
The Conversation. 26 February 2014. Universities Australia deal to get students ‘work ready’. The Conversation [online]. Available at http://theconversation.com/universities-australia-deal-to-get-students-work-ready-23719.
Wallace, RM. 2011. The affordances of mobile learning that can engage disenfranchised learner identities in formal education. In: Pachler, N, Pimmer, C and Seipold, J (eds.), Work based mobile learning; Concepts and cases, 117–144. Bern: Peter Lang AG International Academic Publishers.
Yunupingu, M. 1989. Language and power: The Yolŋu rise to power at Yirrkala School. Ngoonjook, 2: 1–6. Available at http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=151805372855431;res=IELIND.