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

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.

. 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.

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 (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 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 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 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  (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

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. 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)  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

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

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). 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). 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. 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). 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

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 .
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 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